Latest "Laptop Hunter" ad - Lauren and Mom

Latest "Laptop Hunter" ad - Lauren and Mom

Summary: Here's Microsoft's latest "Laptop Hunter" ad, featuring the star of the first ad, Lauren, and her Mom.

TOPICS: Laptops

Here's Microsoft's latest "Laptop Hunter" ad, featuring the star of the first ad, Lauren, and her Mom.

Like I've said before, I'm getting tired of these ads, but it seems that they are working on the viewers out there in TV land, especially on the 18-to-35 age group, helping Microsoft overtake Apple in value perception.

I think that what's interesting about this ad is how Microsoft bought back Lauren from the first ad and has her spread the word and "influence" someone else. If Microsoft wants to claw back market share from Apple, step 1 is to influence the individual, step 2 is to get them to spread the word and influence others.

Where do you stand? Are these ads having an effect on you? Have they made you, or someone you know, change buying habits?

Topic: Laptops

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why do we need a commercial...

    to prove what everybody has known for years,
    that Apple computers are rip-offs.
    • Generalizations always fail....

      For instance I disagree with your statement ans since I am someone then
      the obvious conclusion is that everyone does not agree with what you

      Pagan jim
      James Quinn
      • Great...

        So, what, you DON'T think they are rip-offs?
        Apple's ads fail because they try to sway people
        from PCs to Macs for the very reason they hate
        Macs to begin with. To the average computer user
        out there, all they see is the price.
        • NO I do not... I see real value in being a Mac owner/user!

          I've been in the personal computer business since the start of very
          close to it. I've used every brand name you likely know of and many of
          those who have come and gone over these past few decades. Every OS
          and some you likely never heard of. In the end Apple has proven at
          least to me to be the best and worth every penny. Now what makes
          you think Apple's adds have or are failing? They seem to be doing
          well enough Apple that is. Sales are good, for a recession as huge as
          this one Apple is doing unusually well I would say based on their last
          quarterly report. Apple does not mind if Lauren purchases a PC laptop
          for odds are that either the hardware or the OS or the applications will
          give her problems. She is likely not a PC Support Specialist and may
          leave herself open to malware or have "other" issues famous in either
          hte PC hardware vein or OS area. Then Lauren older and wiser will get
          another chance and may find Apple's commercials strike a cord with
          her experiences and a happy Mac user will be born anew:)

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
          • They fail because...

            The only people who would value a Mac more than a
            PC for the reasons they state either already have
            a Mac, or are in the upper 1% of geekdom.
          • No they do not fail because the people who often

            find value in a Mac had used for any number of years a PC or several
            PC's which had problems like malware of various sorts, blue screens of
            death or poor hardware due to the various vendors and there never
            ending price/margins wars. Worse still some have experienced a
            combination of those factors over the years. They realize that a
            computer should be a tool not a project in and of itself. The want to
            get their work and fun done not work to get to the point of doing
            something productive. Sure PC's are less expensive but you hardly
            ever find a real catch when you go that route. Most wise PC purchases
            are not of the el cheepo models but rather an intelligent PC owner
            chooses PC's that are usually priced in the Mac range anyway. To be
            fair sure a business who has certain standards in place and system
            wide malware protection kept up to date can purchase a basic system
            stripped of any thrills like sound cards and such for a few hundred
            dollars and have basic business apps run off it to do database and
            spreadsheet work on mass. In that I give the PC all the props in the
            world but I as a consumer have little to no interest in that area of

            Pagan jim
            James Quinn
          • Let me ask you Jim.....

            When was the last time you owned a PC to judge everyday use with a good machine? Be honest, has it been since the 90s? Have you ever owned a PC, when and what OEM and model? <br>
            Have you ever even tested out a good modern day PC with Vista? You keep talking about problems that haven't been seen on PCs for a long time, and those that have by users who have fallen prey to social engineering which have been proven to work on all platforms. You know that windows users, which make up most all users in the world, are getting hit hard every single day with SE attacks. Doesn't affect me, or a user like you. As MacOS X gains share and the worms and viruses and malware start to mount, you'll be whisling a different tune for certain. Mr. Miller noted no built in security makes OS X easier to hack than Vista or Linux. To me, that is quite clear. It's just a matter of time and numbers.
            Look at the big hacks. *n*x machines totally compromised repeatedly and data stolen from the government air traffic control system. No windows machines in sight, but senstive U.S. information has been falling into the wrong hands. Linux is more secure than OS X (BSD/MACH system patched together) and we've seen it get totally compromised. <br>
            And what does marketing and sales have to do with quality? If you sell a lot of something at a lower price, or a little of something at a higher price, how does that affect quality?
            Apple has been trying to bring it's prices down ever since it moved to x86 and has been smearing Vista. Does that mean it's lowered it's quality too? Must be, with you logic.
            So the newest Apples are all "rotten". '
          • @ zenotek your staement = FAIL

            Two years in an Apple retail store have shown me that, once again, your hyperboly is just plain wrong.

            The number of switchers is shockingly high and has been for years now. These switchers come from all walks of life and my customers were mainly people

            Apple has a perceived value that I happen to agree with. When an Apple store opens most of the service companies in the area shift their focus to concierge business-oriented services because everyone bring repair work to the manufacturer. I was a Mac Genius. I did the repair work. No system is perfect, but the VAST majority of issues are solved in 15 minutes to an hour at the Genius Bar and mostly consisted of teaching people how a new program worked or where to find answers in a help file. Usually it was a no-repeat event, In other words the kind of thing I do over and over and over again with Vista and XP users. Education is needed for some people with any new task and it is a platform independant need.

            The number of machines that needed physical repair, although not insignificant, is <i>very</i> small as a percentage of units in the field. There is no such thing as a perfect complex system of hardware. As the latest Apple ad ( "Customer Care) points out, though there is nowhere outside of Apple where you can go for free one stop diagnosis of a problem be it </i>hardware or software and regardless of your warranty status</i>.

            Lots of people see these things, and others, as adding value to the Mac. Lots of those people believe that value is justified. My customers included doctors, lawyers, state legislators, the former Governor of Maryland, as well as <i>house painters, mechanics, students, farmers, self employed artists, retirees on fixed, limited incomes</i> in other words a lot of folks definitely NOT in the upper income levels. By far these were the majority.

            You come up with something that refutes two years of hands on real world experience and <i>maybe</i> I'll believe you. I am NOT an Apple employee anymore and I recommend Windows surprisingly often if I think it's appropriate. I did so when I was an Apple employee as well. Both systems have merit and many many many people see the merits of Apple products.

            BTW: What do you think "people who already have a Mac" had before their Mac? Almost no one buys a Mac as their first computer. So maybe the value is "perceived" but it seems to hold p down the road!
          • Rev Jim. They are buying Vista machines.

            in case you didn't notice, it's more secure and harder to hack than Leopard. <br>
            Thanks Charlie Miller for proving that. <br>
            A small bump in marketshare and we see at least 2 worms in the MAC OS sphere already. <br>
            As Charlie said, MacOS X has not security built in, which allowed him to hack it pretty much instantly. Meanwhile Vista security was carefully crafted and layered into the OS. <br>
            Name one malware attack against Vista that's been successful, even though those that watch this stuff tell us windows machines everywhere are getting battered daily with attempts, while Macs are far less targeted.
            But that is growing, as the market grew and it became obvious MacOS X is easy to hack. Unix has always been easy to hack. Just look at the Air Traffic Control System hacked over and over and all of the data taken, those were 100% Linux systems and they've been touted as even more secure than the patched up BSD/Mach OS Apple uses. Same OS really. Built on the very same model, only Linux is more up to date and had more security oriented components added for the here and now, not the 1970s and 80s. <br>
            You made a comment awhile back about MS "riding the back of IBM". Totally wrong.
            Here is the history:
            Here is what MS-DOS was in the 80s. It could not even be sold or licensed as an OS because it had not tools, no utilities, no manuals, IBM controlled all of that and also had PC-DOS that MS helped they build.
            <i>As such, MS-DOS was not a complete (finished) product; rather, it was only a core set of code that could be licensed by a computer manufacturer to run on its systems.

            To actually have a finished version of MS-DOS for end users, a given computer manufacturer such as Texas Instruments would have to license the core MS-DOS code from Microsoft, test and if necessary modify that code to work properly on its hardware, write their own versions of any or all of the utility programs that IBM had written for PC DOS (as well as possibly write any additional utilities they wanted), and finally write and print the manuals, copy the disks, and package it all together into a finished retail product. If the manufacturer was Texas Instruments, the finished MS-DOS product might be called Texas Instruments DOS, and would only be guaranteed to run on the Texas Instruments computers for which it was designed.
            In 1991, IBM was still the PC king, as you said and they split with MS, who didn't have utilities nor a complete OS to license.
            IBM had PC-DOS and they took ownership of OS/2, which Microsoft also helped them build. <br>
            After the split in 1991, Gates looked around and say SUN and the Unixes doing nothing but catering to large businesses and internet servers. They had no concept of building an inexpensive PC for everyone.
            IBM was too proprietary, as you can read in the link, and the microchannel stuff and all kept businesses coming back to IBM to buy their hardware components. It was hardware and software lockin. <br>
            taht brings to mind another company that had th entire 80s to establish a home user market which nobody else was targeting. But since they also locked you into the hardware and software and proprietary protocols and wanted 5000.00 for home machine, they didn't get too far during the entire decade of the 80s. <br>
            MS went out on it's own, with as you said, the King, IBM, as their direct competitor, not their backer or someone giving them a lift.
            They also went head to head against Apple and Gates came up with the idea of partnering with hardware companines that would build open architecture PCs. PCs that didn't require IT departments to run to Apple or IBM or SUN for more memory or a new disc drive. They could get it at any component dealer because they were all standardized for PC clones. <br>
            ALL of those buinsesses locked into IBM, as you said they were king, started moving to the MS/PC model instead because it was much cheaper and allowed them to manage and upgrade their own machines saving millions in costs that Apple or IBM would have taken otherwise via high priced components and proprietary hardware such as risc processors or microchannel crap. <br>
            MS literally defeated the King of PC kings in the span of about 3 or 4 years!! It was unprecendented. They took out the TITANS of the entire globla IT world. SUN, APPLE, IBM, AT&T System V, Novell Netware, DIGITAL UNIX, SCO, TEXAS INsTRUMENST...the list goes on and on. <br>
            Only Microsoft had the idea of creating a PC that everyone could afford. Sure it might not be as great as a "Lisa" Mac, but they didn't cost 5000.00 dollars either, which only the rich and elite could afford all the way up to this decade and they are still locked into hardware and software and high priced. <br>
            So your story about "being there" and seeing MS ride IBM's back is a made up fantasy my friend. They knocked IBM, a company thousands of times it's size on it's arse. They were the heroes of the 90s to most of the businesses and PC buyers of the 90s and this decade. Only MS tried to make somthing average people, even low income people could afford. <br>
            Now the hardware is all the same, Mac or PC, only the case and motherboard design is left to Apple and they have had more heat related issues than anyone else per sales. <br>
            So the declare that Microsoft was a monopoly is still debatable in reality. It was done to appease the rest of the IT industry that Microsoft literally blew away. Unless you want to say the day MS split with IBM they already had 100,000 employees and the majority marketshare. They had NO marketshare. They earned every bit of it with IBM trying to stop them....and still trying.
            So yeah, they were a monopoly alright. A monopoly of business savvy, business sense and ingenuity, but nothing else. They never bullied their way to the top. How could a 50 employee company bully anyone? They came up with the biggest, newest paradigm in IT to that point and deserved every bit of market they won. Gates was doing it for the people too you know. I'm sure you and others will scoff at that, but that was his goal, like Henry Ford wanted everyone to afford a car, Bill Gates wanted everyone to be able to afford a PC. <br>
            Now they have a fully modular, 3D, high end, highly secure OS and people like YOU are STILL going on and on about the Hardware beig inferior and the software being bug ridden. <br>
            Please Rev, it's almost the second decade of the 21st century. Please don't argue with 1990s rebuttals.
            Sorry it's so long Jim, I know you'll say something about that, or that you didn't read any of it or whatever, but you know it's true.
            Now care to discuss reality. Such as which OS between Snow Leopard and Windows 7 is going to be better? They are both going to be killer OSes. We know that about win 7 due to public testing. Don't you think that is where the talk in IT is at? Or do you want to just keep on pointing out the same way, year after year after year, no matter what has happened, that Macs are great and PCs suck? Wouldn't it be a bit more engaging? Think you could handle it?
          • Pretty much ...

            ... true.

            I've got to agree with you yet again Xuni.


            "...They came up with the biggest, newest paradigm in IT to that point and deserved every bit of market they won. "

            Also have to completely agree there too. In basic terms, Gates and MS are to computing what (and as you correctly pointed out) Ford was to the automobile industry. This is true, in that as Ford's vision was of cars being available and affordable by not only the wealthy - but also average Jo and Jane, so too did Gates and MS have the idea of creating the platform (Windows) as the basis of a relatively cheap, affordable home computer for all: wealthy or not. This has come to almost complete fruition.

            Fast forward to 2009, and the same holds true now - only more so. I build PC's, and i'm staggered how the cost of peripheral hardware has dropped: despite the fact such hardware is genuinely incredible by performance standards. And since x86 architecture is so universal, the average user has so many choices of not only OEM, but (if they are anything like me) they also have the option of mixing and matching different hardware configurations according to their needs and tastes - all with the added bonus of having an operating system that is PnP ready for the majority of said devices - Windows.

            If we contrast that with the approach of Apple, it's as plain as day that Apple have gone virtually the opposite direction: proprietary hardware and software, contractual lock-ins. This is by no means to demean the business model Apple chose to 'carve out' over the years, but to point out that one should be careful before passing judgment upon Gates and MS. We could easily argue that Apple's business model smacks of "elitism", which is something any rational person could never accuse MS of.

            However, and all things being equal - i guess this issue has always been a case of "to each their own". So for my own, i will stick with all things PC, i.e., Personal Computing - NOT political correctness.


  • Um, same name, different women...

    These are two different Laurens... And the Lauren in this add is not helping her mom, she's buying the laptop herself, for "law school."
    • Lol. The ads are certainly making an impression on Adrian. (NT)

    • For a second I thought buying a PC made her prettier.

      But as you point out, the blog got this key point wrong. Either way, kudos to MS for finding someone who doesn't make the part of America outside of Berkley cringe. I haven't watched it with the sound on, but without audio at least this is the best ad MS has done in many years.
  • "Microsoft bought back Lauren"

    "bought" or "brought"? Freudian slip, typo, or clever play on words... both seem to be appropriate.
  • Man she is hot. How much would it cost to buy her heart?

    • dreamland

      good one though...
    • I guess if you can get it for $1700...

      you can keep it!
      • I'm surprised this comment didn't get deleted

        along with the 5 or so others ones of mine that
        DID get deleted.
    • Look at her mother

      That's how she'll end up looking like.

      But how impressed would you be with someone who passed
      up getting a better notebook (upgrades) & extended
      • Yeah, I know I was thinking she should have went with that....

        HP too. <br>