TouchSmart?
I was talking with Bob this morning and he drew my attention to this advertisement:
It’s the quintessential example of how an idea can get in the way of a message.
HP have obviously developed a touch screen computer because they’ve realised consumers want a touch screen experience. Makes sense. What they have failed to recognise is that the touch screen bit is actually the big idea. Not a random film about a person conducting some stuff…? Doesn’t make sense.
It’s a little weird right? They develop a product because they know there is a need and lots of people will be excited and will want to buy it. Then, when it comes to the bit when they tell these people about it, they hide it behind an irrelevant (well executed) advertising idea.
Yes, if you were the agency you’d probably argue that the punter will see the bit at the end and be excited. But they were already excited, and you’ve not added to that by showing them that bloke and some tissues? If anything they’ll have switched off before they get to the end because they are watching yet another random/vague ad.
I no understand…
Comments
4 Responses to “TouchSmart?”
Leave a Reply
I thought it was interesting… Communicating that ‘tactile’ is the new way to work. The fact that it’s more natural etc…
My problem is that you would still have to suffer under Vista which isn’t designed as a touch interface (neither is the current desktop Mac OS X for that matter). Until the desktop operating system can properly support gestures and a more tactile interface, the hardware innovation is largely irrelevant.
The ad communicates a vision of the future and not the current capabilities. That’s a bit dishonest.
what a fucking name dropper you are
dunno if you saw this by the way:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2008.pdf
What do you mean? Bob is the security guard here.
Oh sorry, I thought you meant Robert De Niro.