Microsoft has been going for quirky, weird and cutesy advertising since Bogusky & co. took over the job. They launched the campaing with a bang, even if it was a bit challenging for the average consumer. But then they really made their mark with the “I’m a PC” campaign.

Apple has been going after Microsoft with their famous “Mac vs. PC” ads. Now, Microsoft is fighting back, but not as directly as Apple did before (Check out the clever use of a Macbook Pro in the video above). Where as Apple was making direct comparisons between the two and taking pot shots at the company Gates built, Microsoft has sort of declared itself above the whole debate and is trying to paint Apple as a brand that takes itself a bit too seriously. Apple’s strategy was more divisive, aggressive. Microsoft is more inclusive and to me, much more clever.

Teemu pointed out to me what he had noticed, that Apple had a considerable presence in Wall-E, Pixar’s latest masterpiece. Wall-E even boots up with the similar sound that a Mac does, which was very tongue in cheek. This is of course partially due to the fact that Steve Jobs used to work at Pixar, and the two companies enjoy a very close relationship even today. But what Teemu had noticed, that Apple’s presence in Wall-E had elements of meaning management in it. He suggested that I blog about it, because this subject is kinda up my alley. Needless to say, I was gutted that I hadn’t noticed it myself. But Teemu’s right, there’s a lot of meaning Apple is trying to mine in Wall-E.

I won’t go into detail about the movie’s plot, but let’s just say it’s heavily centered on green values, in a rather pessimistic way. Of course, Apple or Macintosh is never mentioned directly in the movie, but Apple’s presence is more about the small things: Apple’s familiar design language in Eve, the other robot, using the Apple chime when Wall-E boots up. But what I thought was the most obvious, and most meaningful thing about Apple, was this:

In the photo you will see that green leaf in Eve’s, uh, body. That leaf was blinking as Eve had gone in to sleep mode of sorts. The blinking was identical to how a Mac’s LED flashes in sleep mode, so it couldn’t have been a coincidence. But what I think is even less of a coincidence, is the green leaf in it. Apple has caught a lot of flack for the environmental unfriendliness of their products. Greenpeace had their prominent Green my Apple campaign. Apple has also scored low marks in Greenpeace’s guide to green electronics (guess which company ranks #1?), so they have had their work cut out for them.

I thought the subtly done meaning management in Wall-E could have been seen as a sign that Apple is aiming for a new, greener strategy. A cynic might say that everybody is these days, but the the launch of the new Macbook today showed that the company is taking green very seriously. Watch the presentation video, and you’ll see how much effort and emphasis they’ve put on the green aspects of the computer. It’s quite a huge step.

But all in all, was the meaning management effective? Or was it even intentional, or at least planned on a high level? Or was it just a gag that the guys at Pixar had done, to show their affection to Apple? We won’t know unless somebody comes forth and says it. But for now it’s a very clever way of doing brand placement in a movie. Using only the design elements of Apple products and not the company logo would make Martin Lindstrom proud.

UPDATE: Treehugger says that the new Mac is indeed very, very green (via PSFK). Great news. I think Apple really understands the concerns of their core demographic: they tend to be left leaning, young and urban, and not being a green company is against what Apple stands for, in terms of lifestyle.

But in other news, Wired reports that analysts say that the new Macbooks are too pricy to compete. The analysts cite the downturn in the economy is the main driver. I sort of disagree. Are they going to feel a pinch in sales? Sure. But I doubt that slashing prices was going to help their bottom line anyway, especially for an iconic brand like Apple.

Steve Jobs clearly is worthy of Apple. When he comes on stage at any of Apple’s major conferences and does that little dance of his, within minutes he has the brand fanatics eating out of his hand. He could (and often will) take the brand into many different directions, because of his credibility as the brand’s number 1 spokesman. Steve Jobs can present many changes to the brand and be sure that people will at least listen to what he has to say. Other brands aren’t so lucky.

The guys at Flickr, apparently, are not worthy of their brand. They decided to add video features to the famous photo sharing site, and the heavy users and the fanatics didn’t like it and are up in arms about it. I’m a bit torn on the development myself. I understand the rationale behind both the company and the people opposing the move, but that’s not what this post is about.

When people are really fanatical about a brand, they will seek to take ownership of it. They see themselves as the only “worthy” chroniclers of the brand and its meaning. That’s why it’s sometimes so hard for prominent and popular brands to be managed: the insiders and fanatics are resistant to change (as people usually are by nature), and in this new and connected consumer economy the fanatics can group up and voice their opinions given their lack of geographic restraints. This is why it’s so important to have your brand’s management “on brand” (I hate that expression but can’t think of a better one): to avoid the brand’s control slipping away from the brand’s management.

Changes to the brand are inevitable. The consumers’ acceptance of these changes, however, is not. Some people even feel that in this new economy brand managers can’t control their brands at all anymore and they should just embrace this and let the consumers sit in the brand’s driver’s seat. Echoing this notion, in the book “Authenticity” it was argued that the more consumer-driven a brand feels, the more authentic it is perceived to be. So simply handing the keys to the brand to the customers looks like a tempting idea, but I still think it’s not the best way to approach the problem.

A company controlling its brands’ destinies is still possible, but the rules for brand management have changed, and brand managers have much less room to maneuver now. Brand managers have to convey a profound understanding as to what the brand is about (more than its mission statement and brand guidelines etc.) and show a charismatic voice and a vision that people will at least be willing to hear out. Otherwise the consumers will assume control of the brand entirely and steer the brand towards a more rigid and eventually doomed path.

Because we all know how committees work as decision makers.