I wanted a Mac but all I got was this lame PC

<br/><a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=0bb6a07c-c829-4562-8375-49e6693810c7" target="_new" title="Laptop Hunters $1000 - Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion">Video: Laptop Hunters $1000 - Lauren Gets an HP Pavilion</a>

Have you seen the new Microsoft commercial? Lauren, a cute redhead 20-something, needs a new computer -- specifically a 17-inch laptop for under $1,000. She starts at the Apple store before discovering that you can't get a decent Mac for that cheap...so instead she's stuck going to Best Buy or Staples or some store like that and springing for an HP computer. The ad summary -- with a PC, you get more for your buck.

Advertising based strictly on price -- it's a relevant idea, given the state of the US economy, but does it work? I don't think so.

There are two major issues I have with the ad:

1) Advertising based on pricing only works in the short term. To successfully market something, the product has to be valuable. Basing an entire marketing strategy on selling a cheap product is the least effective way to add value to your product. Consumers aren't stupid, and we know that you get what you pay for. (And as a side note, the HP computer that Lauren ends up with sucks.)

2) In the end, Lauren doesn't get what she really wants (a Mac) and instead settles for what she can afford (settles being the key word here). Do you really want your product to be one that people "settle" on? It's hard to build long term brand loyalty when even you admit that the competition is better.

Thoughts?

Men at work....or not (and what's a marketer to do?)

My friend Jess needed a last-minute babysitter for her two adorable kids, so I volunteered to serve as nanny du jour. Her kids, 4 and 2, are obsessed with trains and the zoo, and as luck would have it, the Houston Zoo is literally a stone's throw from the Hermann Park Train. So guess what I spent my morning doing? That's right -- hanging out with lions, tigers, and bears, as well as some dirty diapers, juice boxes, and trains.

The zoo itself wasn't especially interesting (I've been about a dozen times this past month -- it's my go-to babysitting distracter) but what was interesting was that I saw at least 5 dads wandering around with strollers, diaper bags, and (of course) kids. These weren't single dads -- gold bands donned their ring fingers-- but it was clear that they were in charge of the kids. One dad, decked out in shorts and a tee-shirt, sported an Accenture hat. Needless to say, I don't think riding the carousel with his twin daughters qualified as consulting. Another victim of the recession? Probably.

I recently came across an article about how the recession is impacting traditional gender roles at home. With men being laid off at a much faster rate than women (per the article, at least -- as y'all know, your's truly was laid off, as were many of my friends with boobs), more and more men are watching the rugrats, cleaning the house, and making dinner while their wives are serving as the chief breadwinner. And while a female provider is nothing new for some well-educated couples, it looks like it could be a new trend among average Americans as well.

It will be interesting to see if this current trend continues. Some statistics show that women now make up almost 50% of the workforce -- that's pretty exciting (although let's not forget that women still earn, on average, $.80 for every dollar a man makes. Boo.) If the number of women in the workforce continues to grow -- and if these new Stay At Home Dads don't return to their jobs -- some marketers are going to have to shift how they're speaking to consumers. Advertising that used to target Stay at Home Moms will now need to start speaking to Stay at Home Parents. Could Glad commercials soon feature both women AND 40 year-old-men with glasses, balding hairlines, and expanded midsections?

As a side note -- Sammy, Jess' two-year-old daughter, gives the best hugs ever. So cute!