Personal Computers and Marketing

Cisco vs. Intel

The two companies, Intel and Cisco, are both tech giants that focus on hardware. Both of these companies found that, at a certain point, they wanted to shift their marketing to more of a B2C focus, away from their B2B roots. Both companies had become quite large as suppliers of goods on which the Internet economy was built. Cisco specialized in routers and switches, whereas Intel made the chips that powered computers. But both companies had little brand recognition among consumers, and both realized that this could become a problem, because if they remained anonymous they would be more susceptible to competitors entering their respective markets, than if they had brand names that could ensure a baseline level of demand.

Thus, both companies at different points made shifts in their marketing to focus on building their brands among consumers. Cisco took the approach of highlighting the connectivity angle, showing consumers that Cisco's products were integral to a lifestyle of high connectivity. Thus, consumers through this messaging would start to appreciate the role that Cisco played in making their lives better. The strategy would not only promote the purchase of more Cisco goods, but would aid the company is solidifying its position as a supplier of these hardware devices. One of the biggest elements in this messaging shift was the need to relate more to the consumer, and highlight how the company's products helped meet consumer needs (Eckerle, 2016).

Intel's approach was a little bit different. It was not the producer of end goods the way Cisco was, so it had to focus on the fact that it was a key ingredient in a lot of end goods. Again, the point of the strategy was similar to that of Cisco, which was to raise awareness of the role that the company played in the Internet revolution. In the case of Intel, the focus on ingredient marketing was key to sustaining demand -- when personal computers were being commoditized, differentiating on the basis of key inputs was important. Thus, Intel wanted to ensure demand for its chips by making sure that consumers recognized what the latest and greatest Intel chips were; cheap computers made with cheap chips were not a comparable product to computers made with Intel chips.

One of the common themes to the transition for both companies was the focus on experiences. The reality is that both of these companies were only able to gain a certain amount of traction with marketing their products; they needed to not just show consumers what they did but to let the consumers feel it. So the focus shifted. Cisco had things like meeting the athletes at stadiums and Intel built an entire campaign around "amazing experiences outside" (Schiff, 2016), communicating something similar about the contribution that its products make to the enjoyment of life.

Both companies spent a lot of money on their programs as well. Both of these companies were quite wealthy, having built massive, profitable businesses. They had the money to spend, and needed to substantially increase their marketing budgets accordingly in order to become household names. The tactics were different, but the overall approach was basically the same -- to spend a lot of money building the brand among consumers and creating association with positive attributes like experiences and connectivity.

Evaluation and Recommendation

Both companies have enjoyed tremendous success. They both stand in the top 20 of the most valuable brands in the world according to Interbrand (2016) -- Intel at 14th and Cisco at 16th. Both companies have been able to establish their brands widely across both consumer and business markets. People are more likely, however, to recognize what Intel does. They make chips that go into computers and other devices. But just as important, there is a more tangible understanding among consumers about what Intel does for them. This is speculative, but definitely a reasonable perception.

That said, is it reasonable that Intel has branded itself better among consumers? Both companies have strong brands, even if Intel's brand is more directly tied to a specific product. That product is more directly used by consumers, so in that sense the two companies were never really that comparable, because consumers buy and use daily things with Intel chips. They might require Cisco routers for their daily work, but are not necessarily the end buyer, nor do they hold influence over the end buyer. So as far as that goes, Intel has likely done better with the branding.