为了这一目标，AMD，这家世界第二大个人电脑微处理器的制造商，上星期在美国几大全国性报纸上刊登整页广告，其中包括纽约时报，华尔街日报，华盛顿邮报以及圣何塞水星新闻。另外，AMD还在几个商业网站上登有横幅广告。
题为“英特尔反垄断案: 为什么AMD要发起诉讼”的广告重申了AMD上周起诉英特尔的诉讼理由： 通过胁迫用户和自己签订排外的协议，英特尔危害了芯片业的竞争。（比如Gateway，据报道说，由于和AMD做生意，已经被英特尔打入冷宫。）
AMD还指控说，英特尔对产品进行恶意打折。AMD的广告称：“站在竞争的角度上看，这种手段只是商业手段。但是，从垄断的角度上讲，这是非法的行为。”
AMD的首席执行官Ruiz还鼓励广告的读者去他们的网站上了解诉讼案的详细情况。在这个网站上，AMD罗列了48页的诉状。
很明显，AMD希望获得公众的支持。但是，AMD负责这场宣传的发言人David Kroll却表示，他们的主要目的是让AMD引起公众的注意。
Kroll说：“许多人甚至不晓得AMD的存在, 因此我们感觉需要做些额外的事情了。”
Kroll认为，读者对广告的反应令人鼓舞。他说：“从拉动人气上来看，广告宣传令人满意。让人们阅读诉讼案件不太容易，但我们希望人们了解隐藏于英特尔深处的黑暗。”
英特尔的发言人Tom Beermann说，广告毫无意外。英特尔已经否认了AMD的这些指控，公司宣布，将打这场官司。
反垄断律师David Balto说，AMD 的广告宣传不同寻常，这家公司很明显感觉自己需要直接将信息传达给消费者。他说：“计算机用户对此会比较感兴趣，因为这部分人一般比较聪明，对他们正在使用的东西比较关注。”
除报纸以外, 广告还在The Hill 以及 Roll Call这两本杂志上刊登，这两本读物的主要受众是法律方面的人士。
这不是硅谷公司第一次运用广告宣传来获取公众的加分。几年前，惠普收购康柏时，也发动的广告宣传攻势。Sun公司也在于微软的Java官司中进行了广告战。1997年，Intergraph起诉英特尔的时候，也专门建立了一个网站，让公众随时了解诉讼的进展情况。
Insight64的编辑Nathan Brookwood认为，在AMD的案件中，这家公司很明显将自己定为成为一名受害者的角色。他说：“我们总是同情弱者，因此，AMD试图将自己定位在这种角色上。”
AMD咬住英特尔不放已有二十几年的时间了，这家攻势有时候取得竞争的优势，有时候又输得一败涂地。Brookwood 表示，广告宣传表明，AMD还有勇气，而不是绝望。
在所谓的x86微处理器市场，英特尔产品的销售超过了80%，收入超过了90%。在诉讼中，AMD宣称，自家x86处理器的市场份额在2001年达到顶峰，拥有了20.8%的市场份额，而到了2004年，这一数字已经下降到了15.8%，AMM认为，这种下滑是由于英特尔的不公平竞争造成的。
AMD认为，过去几年，AMD的产品技术超过了英特了，这本应该让他们获得更多的市场份额。而由于英特尔的行为，采购者丧失了他们选择最好技术的基本权利。
Ruiz上周表示：“当你回过头去看看过去三，四年的情况，看看我们的产品有多大的竞争优势，就没有人会认为我们才应该获得这么一点点的收入了。”(编辑：孙莹)
Hi. We're AMD. Please listen.
Published: July 8, 2005, 6:13 AM PDT
By Laurie Flynn
The New York Times
Hector Ruiz would like you to understand exactly why his company, Advanced Micro Devices, is suing Intel, its larger and much-better-known rival. But short of that, he'd like to make sure that you've at least heard of AMD.
To accomplish this, AMD, the second-largest maker of microchips for personal computers, took out full-page ads last week in several national newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, as well as The San Jose Mercury News, the paper for Silicon Valley. Banner ads are still running on several business Web sites.
The ads, titled "The Intel Antitrust Suit: Why AMD Filed," reiterated the accusations in the lawsuit that AMD filed against Intel last week: that Intel has harmed competition in the chip industry by bullying customers into accepting exclusive deals with Intel and threatening retaliation if they do business with Advanced Micro Devices. (Gateway, for one, reportedly said that Intel had "beaten them into guacamole" in retaliation for doing business with AMD, the complaint states.)
The accusations also focus on Intel's practice of tying discounts on one product to the purchase of another. "For most competitive situations, this is just business," read the ads, which were created by the Glover Park Group of Washington. "But from a monopolist, this is illegal."
The ads featured a letter from Ruiz, the chief executive, telling readers to go to a Web site devoted specifically to the lawsuit. Posted on the site is the 48-page complaint, which contains some vivid language, including, for example, a section in which a Toshiba executive is quoted as saying Intel's incentives are as addictive as cocaine. Unlike most lawsuits, this complaint was written as if actually intended for Web surfers with some spare time.
Clearly AMD was hoping to gain public support. But David Kroll, a spokesman for AMD who worked on the campaign, said the main goal was simply to place AMD in the public consciousness.
"Many people aren't even aware of AMD outside of the technology space, so we felt like we needed to do something extra," Kroll said. "We saw it as a way to get our word out unfiltered."
Kroll said that the response to the ads had been encouraging and that far more people had read the complaint than otherwise would have. "As for driving traffic, it's been good," Kroll said. "It's not easy to get people to read a lawsuit, but we want people to see there's a dark underside to Intel."
Tom Beermann, an Intel spokesman, said the ads were "not surprising, given the highly organized public relations campaign that AMD has embarked on" with its accusations. Intel has disputed those accusations and said it would fight the lawsuit.
David Balto, an antitrust lawyer with Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi who is not involved in the case, said that AMD's ad campaign was unusual and that the company clearly felt a need to reach consumers directly. "Computer customers are interesting because they tend to be intelligent and care about what they're getting," Balto said.
Besides the newspapers, the ad ran in both The Hill and Roll Call, two publications read by lawmakers and, presumably, antitrust investigators at the Federal Trade Commission. The Fair Trade Commission in Japan recently ruled against Intel over accusations that it stifled competition by offering rebates to five computer companies in exchange for their limiting their purchases from AMD and Transmeta. So it is hardly surprising that AMD's lawyers would now want the attention of Capitol Hill.
This is not the first time that Silicon Valley has used ads to try to win the public's favor in the midst of a conflict. A few years ago, Hewlett-Packard ran ads to build support for its acquisition of Compaq Computer during its proxy battle with Walter Hewlett, the former company director, who ran his own full-page ads opposing the deal. Likewise, Sun Microsystems ran ads to influence sentiment against
Microsoft in its battle over Java (the two companies eventually settled). And when Intergraph sued Intel for patent infringement in 1997 the company established a Web site to enable the public to view the progress of the case (which was also eventually settled).
In AMD's case, the company is clearly trying to make the most of its position as the underdog, said Nathan Brookwood, editor of Insight64, a newsletter devoted to the chip industry. "We tend to root for the Davids rather than the Goliaths," he said. "So AMD is trying to position itself that way."
AMD has been nipping at Intel's heels for two decades, sometimes making headway while other times losing ground. Brookwood said the campaign was also intended to portray the company as coming from a position of strength rather than desperation. Right after AMD filed the suit, several financial analysts called it little more than a marketing ploy by a distant second-place contestant; the ads were an effort to counter that notion.
Intel commands more than 80 percent of the unit sales and 90 percent of the revenue in the market for so-called x86 microprocessors, including those used in Windows and Linux computers. In its complaint, AMD, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., says that its share of x86 unit sales peaked in 2001 at 20.8 percent and then declined to 15.8 percent by 2004 despite its technical advances, a drop it attributes to the Intel business practices it deems unfair.
AMD is arguing that given its technical progress over the last few years, the company should have had more gains in market share. Because of Intel's behavior, the ads read, "purchasers lose their fundamental right to choose the best technology available."
Ruiz said last week, "When you look at the last three to four years and you look at the competitiveness of our products, no one would look at that and say that we have earned what we have properly deserved."
评论Feed: http://www.85815.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=643
引用链接: http://www.85815.com/trackback.asp?id=643&key=
这篇日志没有评论.
