Are we talking about marketing or advertising? There is a big difference.
If we're talking about advertising then I think Apple will always be up near the top of the list - especially on sites like Hacker News.
I think 37signals does a great job of marketing their products, but they spend very little (any?) on advertising. Their well designed products and self promotion lead to a pretty large group of 37signals evangelists, so they don't NEED to spend money on advertising.
I think the best self promoter out there right now is Barack Obama - the system his campaign has setup to get donations, get the word out about "attacks," etc. is unmatched. I think we can learn a lot by dissecting how his campaign went from the underdog to the frontrunner.
Think about it... For decades they have been able to create and leverage their monopolistic position in such a way as to get people to continue paying large margins for almost uniformly mediocre offerings.
ObAntiMS: I think history is validating my contention at the time that the Windows 95 era was the peak of MS's power. Alas, like any dinosaur, they take a long time to die.
I've modded you down simply because I honestly don't think Windows is as mediocre as it's made out to be, and this is coming from a current Linux user, and I can't help but feel that Visual Studio or .NET is far from mediocre no matter which way you look at it, and I even think Office is a market leader largely on merit.
I also don't think the cost of Windows represents a "large margin" - paying the cost of 2 new videogames for an extremely complex piece of software that is supported for 7+ years seems pretty good value from where I'm coming from, even if the alternatives are better value.
I honestly think it's a shame that they've felt the need to flex their monopolistic muscle unnecessarily and have given themselves such a bad reputation when they could have had just as much success in a more positive way.
Have you thought about their responsibility for the tremendous amount of time and energy that people lose because they've had to use MS software? For example, how many billions of dollars of time are lost/wasted because MS puts out such buggy software that's used by so many people but MS literally doesn't care to actually fix anything unless it will help them make more sales?
You admire Microsoft's ability to "leverage their monopolistic position" through marketing? Isn't that the complete opposite of the very idea of marketing?
Most of their marketing is terrible, anyway. Vista did not make me say "Wow."
Whether their marketing works on us "elitists" or not is irrelevant -- it works for the vast majority of people who actually pony up money for their products and services. That's admirable in the "excellent, first-rate" definition -- not in the "inspiring approval, reverence, or affection" way.
In fact, that kind of power is truly frightening to me -- akin to the scary power of elected officials and the bureaucratic juggernauts.
Also, you seem to be confusing their wretched advertising with "marketing". I totally agree that their ads suck.
Starbucks. Certainly one of the most amazing recent examples of pure marketing genius. They've had a little backlash, but they've weathered it very well.
If by "marketing" you mean throwing a Starbucks at every possible location possible than I'll agree, but I can't recall the last time I saw an advertisement (billboard, TV, magazine)... Though, maybe that's the point.
Wow, nobody has mentioned Apple? Maybe it's too obvious... dropping the price of the iPhone and then "making up for it" with with $100 store credit just blew my mind.
Discovery Channel is my current favorite. You could write a book on how right their "The world is just awesome" campaign is. You can see it here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=e5Q0CLlFFm0
Harvard University (and to a slightly lesser extent, other Ivy League schools).
Their product is nothing if not world-class, and over the last century or so, it has become nearly synonymous with success, privilege, and prestige.
It can be disputed whether or not there was a significant conscious effort to manage its image through marketing or branding, but one cannot deny the effect it has in many places of the world that you are associated with that institution.
I kind of like the concept of having the product and the network do the marketing. Craigslist did not spend any money marketing but yet they were able to grow entirely based on their product/service. Any competitor could have stepped in and actually had a marketing campaign to steal the show but nothing happened. Similar to facebook I suppose.
Chipotle. Their market cap has increased 3x in the past 2 years, and it's largely through word of mouth.
But as an industry, the best marketing/branding job in history has got to be the diamond industry. There was a time when diamonds had nothing to do with marriage. They created a new market, consisting of almost every Western male.
For an example of an organization that fits both the "excellent, first-rate" and "inspiring approval, reverence, or affection" definitions and has integrity...
craigslist
They live their marketing. Ala what PG was talking about in his talk yesterday w.r.t. Benevolence.
If we're talking about advertising then I think Apple will always be up near the top of the list - especially on sites like Hacker News.
I think 37signals does a great job of marketing their products, but they spend very little (any?) on advertising. Their well designed products and self promotion lead to a pretty large group of 37signals evangelists, so they don't NEED to spend money on advertising.
I think the best self promoter out there right now is Barack Obama - the system his campaign has setup to get donations, get the word out about "attacks," etc. is unmatched. I think we can learn a lot by dissecting how his campaign went from the underdog to the frontrunner.