Apparently, ad creatives are big fans of Macs. Even those ad creatives given the task of making PCs seem cool.
I'll grant that there is a whiff of hypocrisy in using a Mac system to make ads for PCs. But there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of that. Should an agency simply throw out all its Macs and start over from scratch for a PC campaign? Doesn't seem like a responsible thing to do with the client's money, does it? PC manufacturers can make all the claims they want, but the simple fact is that Macs have long had the (perceived) advantage in this space. It would seem foolish to force a shop full of creatives to get new training on whatever systems they'd need on the PC. It certainly wouldn't build good will in the shop. Why, imagine if AOL was your client and it insisted that you all get AOL accounts! Also, should a TV-manufacturer such as LG or Sharp have a fit if it turns out the production house involved with its ads is using monitors made by another brand?
Of course, there are arguments on the other side. George Parker has those
. Sure I'm a little late getting to this, but I find it's usually more fun to read the cumulative effect of Parker--after he's reached the snapping point. And what angers George more than the hypocrisy on display here is the fact that readers and commenters JUST. DON'T. GET. IT.