Even though the interviewee specifically addresses this point, the whole program comes across precisely as an effort to up-sell the consumer to a higher priced SKU (for Big Box, that is). But that's not always a sinister thing! What stinks for AMD is when a computer builder builds a crappy computer (e.g. one with a good CPU, but a bad video card, or not enough RAM), and it's perfectly understandable that they don't like their products being associated with a bad consumer experience that is, ultimately, out of their hands.
The problem is that while this branding, if adopted by those assembling systems, may help out AMD by not tying their products to bad consumer experiences, the lack of versioning means that while the customer will walk out of the store with a new PC capable of playing today's games, they are arguably worse off than ever thanks to the lack of versioning of the platform causing confusion over what, exactly, the "platform" is.
Ultimately, I think this initiative could have some value if it means that computers capable of playing modern games are clearly identified as such, but it by no means establishes anything like a console platform, nor, do I imagine, will it actually have more effect than fancier window managers requiring more capable integrated graphics solutions. Maybe all of us complaining about this initiative's shortcomings would be happier if they had a more to-the-point marketing message to let us all know what it is: a way of differentiating PCs capable of playing games from those suitable solely for web browsing and email.