Slate magazine published, “Mac attack”, “Apple's new mean advertising campaign”. This article was published in Slate magazine on Monday, June 19, 2006 at 6:2 9:00 am ET. The article was written by Seth Stevenson, an analytical writer whose work is periodically published in Slate magazine. The article summarizes Stevenson's view on Apple Computers' advertising campaign. Seth Stevenson wrote an exemplary article in which he gives his opinion on Apple's advertising campaign using the PC guy, actor John Hodgman, against the Mac guy, actor Justin Long. The commentary is well documented with examples and opinions generated from Stevenson's experience and knowledge. It generates a sense of ownership in a portion of the audience by appealing to the knowledgeable PC user's knowledge of PC features. This inclusion may be lost on those who are not PC experts or those whose only knowledge is that of a Macintosh. Stevenson places himself in the middle of the demographic targeted in paragraph three, where he states that he is a PC user who has planned to move into the realm of Macs. In paragraph 3 he goes on to say that the advertising, while wonderful, has not made him desire to switch to a Mac. This information, together with the description of the actors involved, gives us the possibility to recognize Stevenson's vote for the advertising campaign as accurate or inaccurate. The advertising campaign focuses on multiple video ads depicted over a period of time; the name of each advertisement is reported within the article. Stevenson provides some detail about each advertisement by verbally describing the content of the advertisement and a verbal representation of the visual content. Stevenson begins the article with an informative verbal description... in the middle of the paper... this presentation could have influenced him. I'm not a user of Macintosh products, but the advertising campaign used humor and good-natured jabs at the PC audience to gain a following and, possibly, using the audience's philosophy, a partial gain in market share. Stevenson rated this ad campaign a “C” rating, which at the time in question may have been an accurate rating. Today's standards would probably change the grading scale somewhat. If modern products were involved and the same strategies were employed, the rating should be higher than it was in 2006. This campaign strategy is in use today in T-Mobile advertisements, and for some it works perfectly, but as it gives little information about the products themselves, leaves the consumer without a solution. This could explain the “C” grade given by Stevenson to this advertising campaign.