Turning on the plethora of screens that connect us to the ecosystem, some call multimedia, we occasionally come across advertisements that we may not be familiar with, or wonder why they are being presented to us. Which is a question advertisers ask themselves every day and make a living off of. But what if the product isn’t even available in stores? Why would you be shown an advertisement for something you can’t add to your cart and check out, or wander into a store to purchase?
Watching game 2 of the NBA finals (I’ll keep my thoughts to myself), an ad at halftime came across my screen for Qualcomm’s snapdragon processors, which, if you’re not familiar with the world of electronics, you can’t buy at Best Buy or Micro Center directly. Emphasis on direct, as you do buy Qualcomm products when you buy a computer or phone, but you are not directly buying from Qualcomm; rather, the manufacturer is responsible for the purchase. This type of business is typically referred to as B2B.
Looking at Qualcomm’s big brother competitor, Intel, the same is true. Now, the tech-savvy might be saying, “You can buy Intel processors at retail!” Correct, but this segment of the market is primarily reserved for niche audiences such as gamers and hobbyists, making up a minuscule amount of Intel’s sales. Most customers in the market for a device like a phone or computer don’t build their own; instead, they rely on manufacturers to design and present it to them in a nicely wrapped bow.
This is where Qualcomm and Intel generate most of their revenue, supplying computer companies such as Dell, Samsung, and formerly Apple, which now use their own Apple Silicon chips as of 2020—a vital component in the electronic supply chain (Imagine trying to build a human without a brain). This process is typically viewed as an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and component supplier relationship, with computer manufacturers such as Dell and HP serving as the OEMs. Intel and Qualcomm are serving as the component suppliers (or upstream suppliers).
So, if Qualcomm and Intel are primarily in the B2B field, why are they investing so much money in B2C advertising? Intel alone spent $950 million on advertising in 20231, rivaling Apple’s $775 million expenditure2. Apple is in the business of B2C, and Qualcomm’s budget, being less transparent, is expected to have spent around $100 million on advertising3 in 2024, which I experienced firsthand during the NBA finals.
All of this spending isn’t just for show—these elaborate campaigns are actually part of a carefully orchestrated pull-marketing strategy. Intel and Qualcomm employ a three-pronged approach to influence purchasing decisions, build brand loyalty, and strengthen their position in the supply chain, thereby transforming consumer advertising into a powerful B2B tool.
Let’s break this down to gain a deeper understanding. A good starting point is to define what a pull-campaign/marketing is. Pull marketing utilizes educational content, brand storytelling, and benefit-focused messaging that highlights product qualities to foster emotional connections and establish trust with consumers. In the B2B context, pull marketing means creating consumer demand that “pulls” products through the distribution channel. Compared to push-marketing, which offers financial and promotional incentives to intermediaries (such as retailers or OEMs) to stock and promote their products.
We can see this pull effect in Intel’s 13th-generation CPU advertisements4, which showcase technical specs like core count and clock speed to influence the consumer-facing experience. Now, to many people, this may seem like technical jargon; however, the point isn’t for users to necessarily understand what “8 cores at 3.2 GHz” actually means. Instead, Intel’s marketing focuses on translating these numbers into benefits and experiences that matter to everyday users.
These experiential benefits come to life in the ads by showing creatives rendering videos faster and gamers experiencing smoother gameplay on Intel-powered computers. By connecting those intimidating technical specs to real-world outcomes, such as “your video exports in minutes, not hours,” Intel creates perceived value and relevance. This reinforces the idea that Intel chips are essential for getting things done, ultimately generating demand for devices built with Intel processors and creating that crucial value connection between consumers and the business.
The same pull effect is evident in Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X advertisement5, which highlights performance metrics such as extended battery life, quiet operation, and advanced AI capabilities. By depicting professionals working efficiently on Snapdragon-powered computers, the ad creates the perception that owning such a device enables greater productivity. This association reinforces a consumer connection between high performance and Snapdragon-powered computers, ultimately driving demand through perceived intrinsic value.
Ultimately, the slogans of both Intel (“Intel Inside”) and Qualcomm (“Snapdragon-powered”) reinforce the idea to consumers that these chips provide distinctly different value propositions and serve different consumer priorities and use cases. Intel emphasizes performance heritage and reliability, while Qualcomm highlights efficiency and connectivity benefits. This strategic differentiation creates consumer preference and brand loyalty by appealing to different needs rather than direct competition, driving demand for devices featuring their preferred processor brand. But slogans and positioning are just the surface level—the real strategy goes much deeper into how these companies actually execute their pull campaigns.
All of this campaigning from both companies is aimed at strategically positioning themselves in the ever-expanding electronic market as vital and necessary businesses to both the industry and consumers. The ultimate goal is creating a sense of brand loyalty, which becomes incredibly valuable in the electronics space. Electronics and cars represent two of the biggest markets for brand loyalty, and there’s a good reason for that. These are products that consumers expect to perform reliably over the years of use, representing significant investments compared to other purchases, such as clothes or art. When someone invests $1,200 in a laptop or $30,000 in a car, they want to feel confident that they made the right choice—and that confidence often translates into loyalty for future purchases.
Consider upgrading your phone if you have an iPhone—and statistically speaking, you probably do, as iPhones hold a considerable market share in the U.S. If you wanted to upgrade to the new model but it was sold out, would you buy the latest Android phone instead, or would you wait and find another way to get that new iPhone? Most people would choose to wait, and Intel and Qualcomm both understand this powerful concept of brand loyalty in the tech field. They recognize that many users may not fully comprehend the technical aspects of their chips, but they’ll still rely on brand familiarity and trust when making purchasing decisions. This is why they use these pull campaigns to help consumers form a connection with the product, creating trust and loyalty that leads to long-term rewards.
Now, consumers aren’t just passive recipients of these campaigns—studies show that people do research products and make informed decisions based on that research. But here’s where it gets interesting: consumers also rely heavily on influencers, reviews, and yes, the companies themselves to help interpret all that technical information. This is precisely why there’s such an emphasis on the pull aspect of these campaigns—Intel and Qualcomm know they need to educate consumers and make them feel confident about their choices. When consumers review the technical data and imagery in these advertisements, they’re not just learning about specs; they’re building trust and preference for these brands based on how well the companies explain what all those numbers actually mean.
This is a significant contrast to the B2B side of processor sales, where OEMs typically decide which chip to buy based on budget and performance specifications—much more straightforward and less emotional. Now, Intel and Qualcomm could try to compete in that space through the traditional route: an endless arms race of price slashing and R&D spending, constantly trying to undercut each other on cost while pouring money into developing incrementally better chips. But instead, these companies have chosen a more innovative approach, working from the bottom up by creating demand on the consumer side for their products. When consumers start asking for “Intel Inside” or “Snapdragon-powered” devices, OEMs take notice and begin incorporating that consumer preference into their product planning. This consumer demand gives Intel and Qualcomm justification to actually increase component costs rather than slash them, turning consumer marketing into a tool for better B2B pricing and higher revenue.
Now, this strategy works even better because the relationship between OEMs and component suppliers isn’t adversarial—in fact, many OEMs and suppliers actively co-market their products together. This collaborative approach, where two businesses share marketing costs and combine their reach, is evident in campaigns such as HP’s “HP + Intel Inside” for business laptops and Samsung’s “Galaxy ecosystem powered by Snapdragon” messaging. These co-marketing ventures deliver measurable results for both sides: partners typically see a increase in brand awareness6 among co-marketing campaigns and partnerships, along with the qualitative benefit of appearing more innovative through their collaborative approach. Additionally, these joint collaborations provide an extra layer of security in the supply chain, offering both OEMs and suppliers even more incentives to collaborate rather than compete.
Campaigns define a company, but these campaigns also have concrete goals rooted in measurable outcomes and revenue targets. Intel and Qualcomm’s three-pronged approach—influencing purchasing decisions through clever advertising, building brand loyalty through name recognition and product preference, and strengthening their supply chain position through co-marketing partnerships—shows just how sophisticated B2B companies have become at reaching consumers. By implementing these strategies from the bottom up, they’ve essentially turned consumers into unwitting advocates who create demand in the B2B field for their products. This reveals something fascinating about modern advertising: we’re not always the end customer, but we’re still a crucial part of the sales process. When companies can make us care about chips we’ll never directly buy, they’ve figured out how to turn consumer attention into B2B leverage. It’s a reminder that in today’s interconnected market, the most effective advertising often works in ways we don’t even realize.
- https://www.statista.com/statistics/697852/intels-marketing-expenditure-since-2006/ ↩︎
- https://carminemastropierro.com/apple-marketing-spend/ ↩︎
- https://advertisers.mediaradar.com/qualcomm-advertising-profile ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THhrq58cxgI ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Y0KHzjb3c ↩︎
- https://www.chiefmarketer.com/vast-majority-of-brands-see-partnerships-as-central-to-growth-report/ ↩︎
Trager Bos 
Leave a comment