To paraphrase the quote, those who ignore the marketing failures taught by history are doomed to repeat them. The current fight between Microsoft and Apple should astound all marketers and be a great example of what not to do.

The Apple “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” campaign is nothing short of pure, strategic brilliance, on so many levels. Apple successfully changed the paradigm and the frame of reference to make Apple the prize fight contender versus the whole PC category title holder. In so doing, Apple positioned Microsoft, the 800 pound gorilla, as the personification of everything evil in the personal computing world. It makes perfect sense. There is no dominant market leader in the fragmented PC computing world, and the commonality of everyone’s PC pain is Microsoft. So, go after Microsoft! Think about it: Apple, a computer manufacture, who at the start of their campaign had a 10 share, positions themselves versus software - not another computer manufacturer, but the monopolistic operating system that owns 90 percent of the personal computing world. Brilliant. And this doesn’t even begin to address Apple’s advertising execution which is engaging, memorable and incredibly strategic. Don’t think so? Read on.

Market leaders, especially dominant or monopolistic ones, have the luxury to operate above the fray. It helps them to preserve their dominance. Unlike the world champion boxer who must go to battle to keep his title, market leaders can avoid looking over their shoulders and not elevate a contender’s status by acknowledging them. The unknown, up and coming boxer wants nothing more than to fight the heavy weight champion and gain the respect of the boxing establishment. In the marketing world, it’s always the little guy who picks the comparative advertising fight hoping to engage the big guy and raise the little guy’s perceived stature with customers. There are high profile examples in history when this has worked and when it hasn’t.

In the early 1980s, McDonald’s market share was almost three times that of its next closest competitor, Burger King. For years, Burger King did everything it could to keep up with McDonald’s - and was, for the most part, unsuccessful at every turn. Burger King copied McDonald’s lead constantly: McDonald’s builds a store, Burger King builds right next to them. McDonald’s introduces breakfast, Burger King introduces Croissan’wiches. Croissan what? McDonald’s has Ronald, Burger King introduces the King. The list goes on. Then, in 1982 Burger King launched, what was, the first real comparative advertising campaign which got America talking and made headline news on all the networks for weeks. Burger King’s “Broiling vs. Frying” campaign put McDonald’s front and center in their ads in which McDonald’s took comparative jabs, left hooks and undercuts. Despite the incredible PR nightmare that continued for weeks, McDonald’s didn’t acquiesce and acted like the market leader they are. Burger King continued their attempts to engage McDonald’s into a public fight for years, but McDonald’s held steady. Fred Turner and Paul Schrage, McDonald’s CEO and CMO respectively, continued to lead without caving into franchisee and corporate personnel demands to crush Burger King. They knew that being a leader meant looking ahead not behind. McDonald’s command in Burger King’s on-going attempts to pick a fight with them has become the marketing gold standard of what to do in a comparative advertising fight.

Also in the 1980s, Pepsi-Cola nipped at Coca-Cola’s market-leading heels with their Pepsi Challenge. Enter Roger Enrico. The Pepsi Challenge began as small, regional taste tests in response to what Pepsi knew: In blind taste tests without the branding effect, customers preferred the sweeter taste of brand Pepsi over Coke. The Pepsi Challenge gained momentum and strengthened Pepsi-Cola’s resolve to elevate the fight with Coca-Cola. Roger Enrico, CEO of Pepsi-Cola, turned this consumer insight into an on-going war with Coca-Cola in which Coca-Cola finally engaged with their launch of New Coke in 1985. The introduction of New Coke and its subsequent withdrawl has become marketing lore and, arguably, the biggest blunder in marketing history. The market leader elevated the contender’s status in consumers’ eyes and, as a result, the smaller contender won the fight and perhaps the war. The result? Continuing into the 1990s, in forced choice preference channels, brand Pepsi continued to out-sell brand Coke. That happened not because consumers preferred the taste of Pepsi over Coke but because Pepsi got Coke to acknowledge it.

So what does all of this have to do with Microsoft and Apple? Today, Microsoft engages in the fight with Apple and Apple continues to win the war. In the absence of true leadership and innovation, Microsoft continues to follow Apple’s lead with me-too responses. Apple’s “I’m a Mac” advertising campaign is followed by Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” ads. Apple’s hugely successful Apple Store retail distribution strategy is followed by Microsoft’s opening of stores right next to Apple’s with Microsoft’s version of Apple Geniuses! What will Microsoft learn from this? They will discover that their activities benefit Apple much more than they benefit Microsoft. Awareness, brand equity and consumer perceptions of Apple continue to skyrocket thanks, in part, to Microsoft. Microsoft’s activities contribute to Apple’s market share and sales growth - in an environment when Apple competitors are losing ground. Since I own Apple stock, I truly appreciate it. The rest of us can watch what Microsoft does as an example of what not to do if the smaller guy tries to pick a fight.

In the interest of full disclosure, this blog post was written on my MacBook Pro laptop.