About Technology Industry

BNET Technology provides daily industry trends and news coverage with insights for managers and executives about all aspects of the high-tech industry. In addition to detailed tech company profiles, we bring you industry analysis on new mergers and acquisitions, tech products, investments, patents, and a host of other important technology related business issues.

Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

By Erik Sherman | May 1, 2009

There’s been a lot of discussion of the Microsoft and Apple ad campaigns of late, trying to understand which was doing better. From one view, Microsoft played into Apple’s hands; and there’s the argument that the opposite also seems to have happened. But something we haven’t been looking at is spending on marketing, and that reveals something interesting.

First comes a mighty caveat. I’m going to be doing some comparisons of SG&A. For those not familiar with the term, it means Selling, General & Administrative:

SG&A (aka SGA) Selling General and Administrative Expenses (SGA) SGA expenses consist of the combined payroll costs (salaries, commissions, and travel expenses of executives, sales people and employees), and advertising expenses a company incurs. SGA is usually understood as a major portion of non-production related costs, opposing production related costs such as raw material and (direct) labour.

The problem with SG&A is that it lumps a number of disparate things under one category and is not a direct measure of marketing alone. However, it’s as close as we can get, and looking at the trends in SG&A of both Apple and Microsoft is interesting.

Apple’s filings for the quarter that ended on March 28, 2009 indicate that for the three month period, SG&A increased by 11 percent, or $99 million, over the comparable 2008 level. The company says the increases are “due primarily to the Company’s continued expansion of its Retail segment, higher stock-based compensation expenses and higher spending on marketing and advertising.” Even though you can’t tell from the outside how much of the increase might have been stock-based compensation, the company is clearly saying that marketing and advertising spending has gone up. Apple’s SG&A did stay fairly constant as a percentage of revenue: up from 11.8 percent in 2008to 12 percent in 2009.

Compare that to Microsoft, where “[s]ales and marketing expenses decreased $293 million or 9%, primarily reflecting decreased corporate marketing and advertising campaigns and decreased professional consulting fees.” So as Apple’s spending has increased, Microsoft’s has decreased year over year for the same quarter.

We know that Microsoft had a fairly dismal quarter, but remember that it is tied to PC sales. Massive additional spending would not have pulled sales out of the doldrums. Perhaps the company was gathering its resources for the new ad series that just came out and that falls into another quarter.

We already know that Apple’s net sales are slipping, which means that the company has to both build products more efficiently as well as bring in more revenue to keep the profits up. On the retail front, per store revenues of Apple’s own stores are down, as are sales per visitor, suggesting that portions of its point of purchase marketing are losing effectiveness. Yes, Apple’s revenue was up by about 8.7 percent, year over year, but that doesn’t match the almost 12 percent increase in SG&A. That would suggest that Apple is getting less efficient in its marketing and sales (at least to the extent that we can distinguish it from the greater amount of stock-based compensation).

Image via stock.xchng user duchessa, standard site license.

Erik Sherman is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in Newsweek, the New York Times Magazine, Technology Review, the Financial Times, Chief Executive, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter.

BNET User Analysis

Web Buzz:
  • The New Friendfeed, or Too Much Information

    BNET Media - 215 days 12 hours 55 minutes ago

    Largely because of Robert Scoble (aka @scobleizer), there's a lot of chatter today about Friendfeed, which launched a beta of its redesign today. Personally, I haven't been spending that much time on Friendfeed lately, even though I like the concept, which is to aggregate all of a user's social media channels -- from Flickr to Twitter to...

  • Entelligence: Time for Microsoft to tell a better Zune tale

    Engadget - 169 days 12 hours 19 minutes ago

    A lot's been made of the new Zune commercial that Microsoft aired recently. If you have haven't seen it, take a look . Now don't get me wrong. I think there's a lot that Microsoft can do with Zune, but this ad doesn't quite do it for me. What's wrong?...

  • Microsoft screwing themselves while they try to screw Google

    ZDNet - 70 days 7 hours 18 minutes ago

    It turns out Microsoft has been busy holding weekly “Screw Google” meetings, trying to figure out how to throw roadblocks in front of Google as they continue to dominate the search arena. It’s easy for me to say, but doesn’t it make a lot more sense to spend millions of dollars making something that’s actually better than Google rather...

  • Pre-paid debit cards draw attention

    FierceMarkets - 32 days 20 hours 59 minutes ago

    There's been a lot of hand wringing when it comes to regular debit cards and credit cards, but until now we haven't had any real controversies about prepaid debit cards. The New York Times weighs in with a piece about the many hidden fees that can easily "blindside" customers. It's not uncommon for these cards to charge activation fees, ATM...

  • What? We're Just Socializing

    Where's my Jetpack? - 150 days 11 hours 41 minutes ago

    I have a strong dislike for texting, emailing or web surfing at a table, not that I haven't been guilty myself of uploading a picture of a decadent meal , but I will always alert my table mates that I am about to. There's something very anti-social about sitting across from someone and showing...

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    khurt@...

    05/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

    Given that we are using an stated inaccurate measure, "SG&A
    ... lumps a number of disparate things under one category and
    is not a direct measure of marketing alone.", then your claim,
    "Apple is getting less efficient in its marketing and sales" is
    also inaccurate.

  •  
    2

    rebel@...

    05/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

    I agree with khurt. I don't understand where this 'logic' came from at all. There is no way tio assume increases (or decreases) were related to advertising expenses. SGA covers such a broad range of financials - and is usually dominated by sales expenses - with overall marketing being less than 10% of the total SGA. Given the cost associated with direct and indirect sales, the expansions and changes occurring in the sales arena (and specifically Apple's retail push) you can't make these assumptions and remain credible. What';s the old term - figures lie and marketers figure? I think this is a case in point...how about some real numbers so we can have an accurate discussion.

  •  
    3

    ErikSherman

    05/03/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

    I'm not assuming that advertising and marketing expenses were up. If the two of you look at the article again, you'll notice that Apple itself pointed to increases in advertising and marketing as one of three reasons for the increase in SG&A. The others were expansions of the retail chain and stock-based compensation. So, unless you're accusing Apple of lying, ad/marketing spending was higher in the quarter, compared to last year.

    The issue you *might* raise is that there's no way to know exactly how much any one of these three increased, and I'd agree with that. If there had been more detailed numbers, I clearly would have used them. However, the SG&A category was up $99 million - a significant number - and two out of the three categories really have to do with marketing. (I would consider expanding the retail chain to be marketing in essence. But then, I think sales and marketing often get lumped together for a really good reason: it's all about selling product.)

    I had to make an assumption, and did, that as all three were part of the increase, that they all moved uniformly. Clearly you can't say that for certain. But you can say that two out of the three categories were ultimately marketing, and that it seems reasonable to assume that most of the spending came between those two. (Given that the last time Apple publicly talked about repricing options was in 2007, so far as I can find, the chance that the majority of the spending increase went to stock compensation seems a bit far-fetched.)

    So, spending in marketing and sales are clearly up by a significant amount, the amount in net sales that Apple gets per product is down, and retail same store sales are down - all numbers from Apple. Spending up, money in per product/location down ... I think even the info that is available paints a clear picture.

    Note: I'm not saying that it's something they could have avoided. This may be the reason that, paired with improved efficiency elsewhere, the company could have an overall strong quarter.

  •  
    4

    rebel@...

    05/04/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

    Erik

    I totally understand what you did and why you assumed the way you did. Most people think that marketing is a much larger % of SGA than it is. The fact is that marketing doesn't represent a the majority of SGA - far from it. And advertising doesn't represent the total marketing spend. In fact, in most of my clients its under 10% of (and often way under) the total marketing budget. And that marketing budget is, again, under 10% of the total SGA. So you really can't say that marketing and advertising are two of the three components that make up SGA so they are the largest and move at the same rates. SGA doesn't work that way. Sales costs alone will usually be more than 70% of that number in any business model - way more in most cases.

    My point is that SGA numbers and pointers from press releases are a bit too general to make the specific conclusions drawn in the article.

    And to be clear I am not accusing anyone of lying - sorry to see you'd jump to such a negative place just because of a perspective that differs from yours. Was simply trying to point out some facts about SGA - and clarify some of the assumptions that don't necessarily hold true.

  •  
    5

    ErikSherman

    05/04/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Examining Microsoft's and Apple's Marketing Spend

    Rebel, thanks for the reply. And I didn't think you were accusing anyone of lying. I was saying that a bit tongue in cheek, as I understood that your criticism is based on my assumptions. So, no offense taken at all.

    What I took the info from was not a press release but the actual 10-Q. That's as close to authoritative public info as you're going to get. Sure, more specifics would have been much better, but this is what the comapny is willing to say, and trying to understand what businesses do is not as exact as anyone would like.

    The thing is, we're not talking about just advertising. Apple specifically said advertising and marketing expenses. No, they didn't differentiate. And I understand that marketing is not the biggest part of SGA. But we have Apple saying that SGA went up largely becasue of three factors. One was marketing/advertising. A second was expanding the retail chain - and I think that could be considered marketing/sales in a broad sense, because that's the underlying reason to do so. That leaves one category, stock-based compensation, that isn't related to marketing.

    Now, Apple pointed to all three as the big reasons for the percentage jump in SGA. That's not speculation nor an assumption - it's what Apple said. As I've mentioned, my view is that retail expansion and marketing/advertising can all get put into a big conceptual bucket that I'm calling marketing.

    The question is whether those two reasons are substantially bigger than the stock-based compensation. Given that Apple hasn't done a recent reprice on options, then I'd say that it's likely to be so. They're not at the beginning of a fiscal year, but they have done some high profile hires. My guess is that the stock compensation changes aren't the bulk of the SGA change. I certainly could be wrong. But even if I am, we still are left with marketing/advertising and retail expansion getting enough of an increase in spending to warrant mention in an SEC filing.

    That leaves us with saying that net sales per item and same store sales are down significantly. So I'll stick with this indicating that marketing isn't as effective, because it's taking more dollars and a greater reliance on reducing cost/increasing margin to get the financial boost.

    But certainly an interesting discussion, nonetheless. I'm wondering what Microsoft's SGA numbers are going to look like at the report of its next quarter. I can't imagine that the Mac attack ad campaign is cheap.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement
Click Here