Microsoft vs. Apple advertising spending: The real numbers to watch |
Register here for our next TechFlash Live networking event, March 23, featuring an expert panel discussing the future of online advertising.
Much has been made in the past couple days about the $486 million Apple spent on advertising in its most recent fiscal year, as first reported by the eagle-eyed Lindsay Blakely of the BNET business technology news site.
Most of the ensuing commentary focuses on the fact that Apple has been openly poking fun at Microsoft for spending so much on its Windows Vista campaign -- which actually cost a mere $300 million. Oh, the irony!
Well, not really, as it turns out.
For starters, the $486 million vs. $300 million comparison isn't the best one to make, as TechCrunch and others have noted. It's stacking up Apple's companywide advertising (iPhone, iPod and Mac) against Microsoft's spending on a single product. Even though Windows is Microsoft's biggest product, the Redmond company's advertising spans many other offerings.
In fact, Microsoft's companywide advertising budget was $1.2 billion last year, significantly more than Apple's budget, as shown in the chart above. (Note: Microsoft's fiscal year ends in June; Apple's in September.)
But that companywide comparison isn't quite right, either.
After all, Microsoft is a much larger company, involved in specialized business applications, corporate databases, video-game consoles and many other areas where Apple has comparatively little or no presence. Of course Microsoft spends more on ads. So a better way to level the playing field, for purposes of comparison, is to consider advertising spending in the context of revenue.
After digging through the SEC filings and crunching the numbers, I came up with the chart below. It's not a perfect measure, either, but in rough terms, this ratio shows the relative effectiveness of the Apple and Microsoft advertising budgets -- how much each company spends on advertising as a proportion of every dollar in revenue. In general, the lower the ratio, the better. 
As you can see, the companies are very close, but Apple doesn't have to spend quite as much as Microsoft does to bring in a dollar of revenue. And the difference has become more noticeable in recent years. A variety of factors could be at play here, including the power of the Apple brands, the value of word-of-mouth advertising, and the differences in their product mixes.
Feel free to float theories in the comments below.
At any rate, this should be the interesting trend to watch unfold in the years to come.
Todd Bishop is co-founder and managing editor of TechFlash. He has covered Microsoft and the technology industry for more than five years, most recently as a daily newspaper reporter and blogger based in Seattle.
READ FULL BIOGRAPHYIf your current marketing reminds you of gagging on a light beer, then head straight for the hard stuff at MarketMix2010 and a day spiked with intoxicating marketing insight. Discover the secrets of today's marketing mixology at a conference brimming with cutting-edge and classic expertise. Learn to create your own powerful blend of on and offline marketing mixes, and at the end of the day, raise your glass in toast to new knowledge and new connections.
March 10, 2010; 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.; Bell Harbor Conference Center, 2211 Alaskan Way, Seattle.
For more information or to register: www.marketmix2010.com.
Join the Microsoft WebsiteSpark program and get software, support and visibility – at no upfront cost. You’ll benefit from fast and easy access to current Microsoft development tools, platform technology and server products including Visual Studio, Expression Studio, Silverlight, Windows Web Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 Web.
Seattle-based Adhost is a WebsiteSpark hosting partner providing dedicated servers with free Windows Web Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 licensing for three years to Web developers enrolled in WebsiteSpark. Servers are located in our secure data center with SAS 70 Type II certification, 24x7 technical support and 24x7 client access.