Oh, you were actually there during The Second Coming of Steve Jobs? ;) That must have been incredibly interesting! (Possibly "interesting" in the sense of that curse, eh?) It's definitely true that the Think Different campaign kept going after the iMac was introduced. But I don't think it was meant to sell stuff, so it's hard to say if it did its job :) I think it did a great job announcing that things were going to be managed better, and realigned, as it were, from the days of ham-fisted, generic big co. management by Scully and Amelio. Do you think that Apple's competitors will ever stop framing everything they do in relation to Apple (e.g. "iPod killer" or "we have to catch up to the iPhone" or "we have to answer this I'm A Mac ad" or...), and start working on pure goals of their own? It seems like somebody has to, sometime, but there isn't much sign of it is there? Thanks a lot for your blog! Cheers, Amy

Hey there, Jonathan. Multiple-time reader, first time commentor here ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Apple fangirl, but I *was* a Mac columnist at the time of these things happening so I wanted to chime in... 1. The Think Different campaign predates the iMac. It was instigated by Jobs, right after his ousting of Gil Amelia in Sept 97. If you ask me, it was a message to the world that the Apple of old (e.g. with Jobs as Fearless Leader) had come back in a very big way. It was his return announcement, an announcement of intent, and people claim he wrote the words behind the ad as well ("Here's to the crazy ones, the round pegs in the square holes..."). Although probably it was written by a Chiat/Day copywriter. The very first iMac came out later, in May 98. 2. You neglected to mention the dancing iPod commercials, which by all accounts were a big success in creating the aura of cool around the iPod. Apple itself was not cool when the iPod first came out, and more importantly, everyone was sure it would fail. (Including me.) 3. The iPhone ads were perfection itself. No grandstanding, just the most drool-worthy product ever, allowed to stand on its own merits. Otherwise, though, I'm in complete agreement with your conclusion. Apple's competitors can't seem to manage to frame themselves or their products as anything but a *response* to Apple. Which is funny, because that's one of those tricks mentioned in every marketing book: Coke doesn't have to talk about Pepsi, because Coke is winning. By framing themselves in response to the competition, all they do is show how much power Apple has over their business and their markets. By copying their products - badly - and their ads - worse! - they prove that they are hardly fit to be considered a true competitor to Apple. It's sad, because I think Apple could do with some real competition.