Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


John Brandon's picture
John Brandon

Web 2.0 Watcher

New Microsoft ads released: Not funny, not effective

In one of the new Microsoft ads running today, (the other Suits ad is also online) a smart engineer type says "roger" and then an everyday guy who looks like he might be a farmer says, hey - my name is Roger. It's corny enough to make me want to switch to a Mac by sheer protest and watch the Seinfeld ads again to reminisce about the good old days.

Instead of hiring a former sitcom comedian to explain how an uncool company can become cool again, they filmed everyday people (including some kids in Africa) to explain how pervasive Windows has become in the market. It's a Homer Simpson moment: We already know Windows has infiltrated every last segment of society, so what's the point? I think the new ads are trying to say more than just: Hey, a lot of people use Windows. I think they're trying to say: Hey, a lot of really cool, normal people use Windows so don't be too embarrassed and switch to a Mac because that would be bad for society.

The ads also reveal, finally, the real goal of the campaign. In the Suits ad we see everyday people who don't wear suits and, at the end, a really smart guy claims that he uses a PC as well. The Suits ad says: not just the cool people use a Mac. It also says that Microsoft is tired of getting labeled as uncool.


Related Blog
Preston Gralla:
"I'm a PC" ad: Finally, Microsoft gets it


In the second, longer ad where more everyday people (like Bill Gates, playing himself instead of a caricature of himself) say they use a PC. Now, when Microsoft says "PC" they of course mean Windows, not Linux - even though both use the same PC architecture.

The ads are not-so-secretly saying something like this:

Remember that Microsoft has helped every sector of society do their jobs and solve really complex problems. Remember that this whole cool concept that is causing a lot of people to switch to a Mac is sort of bogus because even the really cool people, like NASA engineers, use Windows. And, remember that little kids in Africa are likely never going to be given the chance to switch to a Mac.

So that covers every segment: cool and uncool, smart and everyday, US and other countries.

Ultimately, the ads don't really work. They are telling us something we already know, so that makes them pedantic. And, they are neither funny nor obviously unfunny, so that makes them unmemorable. In the end, it's just another stab in the dark trying to capture the under-30 crowd who have to use a PC at work but could potentially become lifelong switchers.

What People Are Saying

I agree with many regarding

I agree with many regarding the comments made that the Jerry and Bill show was an attempt to make Bill Gates appear as "Everyman", and as such, not only make him seem like an "OK Guy", but also that he's too nice a man to blame for taking in billions of dollars by selling flawed software to us for years. That's insulting. Microsoft has made errors along the way, most of which they have not come forward to admit to.

The new "I'm a PC" ad is more "interesting". I find the word play in it annoying, but that's not the part that I'm noticing most. What I'm noticing is the slight of hand. Apple refers to their competition as a PC, probably because they were warned by their lawyers that mentioning Vista or Microsoft might place them in jeopardy, and besides, everyone knew what they were referring to, anyway.

However, the odd part of the "I'm a PC" ad is that Microsoft doesn't need to defend PCs; heck, they don't even MAKE PCs. The ad ignores the 10,000 pound elephant sitting right next to many of us. Whether the Vista OS is good, bad or indifferent, everyone knows that the only reason Apple is running their anti-Vista ads, and the only reason Microsoft is responding, is because Vista was an attempt by Microsoft to develop a more eye-appealing and creative OS, an area Apple claimed their own. Its Vista that’s in the dog house, NOT PCs, so why is it that not once is Vista mentioned in the "I'm a PC" ad?

A lot of people now run, or used to run, a PC with a Windows OS on it. But how many have actually upgraded to Vista from XP, or better yet, kept Vista on the new machine they purchased more recently?

Yeah, I'm a PC... but not a Vista PC, and that's the whole point. I'm an XP PC, or I'm a Win 2000 PC, I might even be a Win 98 PC, (no one wants to remember ME or Win 95).

Has Vista made that PC work better, or smarter? Is that little girl in Africa using a PC running Vista? We already know that PCs populate all countries and all professions and demographics. That's not what Microsoft needs to prove.

Re: "... but also that he's

Re: "... but also that he's too nice a man to blame for taking in billions of dollars by selling flawed software to us for years."

Bill Gates didn't make billions by selling flawed software. He made billions because we bought his software for decades when there were other credible alternatives available.

I'll Disagree...

Neil stated:

Re: "... but also that he's too nice a man to blame for taking in billions of dollars by selling flawed software to us for years."

Jeff Replied:

Bill Gates didn't make billions by selling flawed software. He made billions because we bought his software for decades when there were other credible alternatives available.

Neil Countered:

I'll disagree. Microsoft (hence Bill Gates) did make billions selling flawed software (they still are, although it isn't as easy). And yes, we bought it because, to a great extent, our choices were few and certainly not easy to locate. I'm old enough to have lived as an adult through the introduction of MS-DOS and Windows, and there is a reason Microsoft was sued by so many companies and governments, later on. Their business models were predatory and monopolistic, and they violated anti-trust legislation globally. In some ways, as the internet and web are today, it was evolving technology, and by the time we (and more important regulatory agencies) realized we've been taken to the cleaners, Microsoft was entrenched.

Yes, we, as consumers, could have probably made better choices, but for the most part it is probably visionary hindsight rather than a fair accusation historically.

Ethics Violation

Say, I was just curious why no one brought up the fact that the NASA guy appearing in the Windows ads is committing an ethics violation by being in these ads, punishable by fine for each violation. It turns out that US Government employees are prohibited by law from endorsing commercial products. If this guy had paid attention to the ethics training every US government employee is required to take, he would have known better.

I guess Microsoft simply didn't care about subjecting this guy to Ethics Code violations and their penalties, which could curtain his NASA career.

Yeah, Right

I'm sure the camera crew got in there with the approval of someone other than the guy shot in the advert, eh? A divison chief, office director, or some such who of course bucked it up the line for "Ethics Code" approval before they ever set foot in the place? I'm sure the employee is doing just fine and needn't worry. FYI, I remember taking an oath to uphold the law and defend my country, but I didn't read the fine print afterward.

You must have been out that day

Every US Government (USG) employee must take ethics training, that is the law. Without you revealing where you worked, I simply cannot buy into your story that you didn't take ethics training, unless, perhaps, your USG service was in the military or you were in the USG so long ago that it wasn't required then or you were so low in the food chain that it didn't matter.

If this NASA guy is billeted to JSC as a USG employee, ethics training is required. And, since these images were taken in the Shuttle mock up at Johnson Space Center -- the NASA Field Center that has had more investigations for "suspicious" activity than any other Field Center according to a statement made by a DOJ lawyer to me -- it doesn't surprise me that the folks there could have looked the other way to help out Microsoft without appreciating the gravity of the ethics violation or simply disregarding it, which I have witnessed them do also.

JSC is well known throughout NASA as doing whatever they wanted, regardless of the implications. Perhaps the JSC CIO had his fingerprints on this one, too, in his quest to wrench the engineers into a Windows-centric world, albeit at much higher IT costs. And, I bet those Space Station guys are really happy about discovering a W32 virus in the computer network up there. And, it might interest you to learn that the first commercial laptop flown was a Mac, by choice.

Regardless, the NASA guy should have known better, had he learned anything in his ethics training. And Microsoft should have had some appreciation of the problems they have potentially created for this guy for his endorsement.

Bottom line: the NASA guy made a boneheaded endorsement that is in violation of ethics laws. Dumb.

"Without you revealing where

"Without you revealing where you worked, I simply cannot buy into your story that you didn't take ethics training . . . ."

CIA

I recall taking three days of sexual harassment training after Billy-boy ------ on Monica's dress ("I did not have sexual relations with that girl blah blah blah"). Excellent use of tax payer dollars, by the way, I was reminded of everything my parents and parochial school education taught me as a child.

But full time "ethics" training? No, not in my 11 years (mid-1980s-90s). Yeah, maybe I was too low in the "food chain" and wasn't required to take the training you speak of. Wait, is it "Every US Government (USG) employee" as you start of by saying, or just the ones who matter? Please dust off the manual and let us know ;-)

"Much higher IT costs" based on what imaginary numbers, my friend? And what did they do with that Mac up there anyway, listen to Tupac via iTunes? Surely you are not going to claim that it contributed to the mission? Running what software? Yeesh.

Bottom line: if the NASA guy violated "ethics laws" then he would doubtless--and I do mean doubtless--be prosecuted, making headlines. Please point me to one of them.

Was he actually a NASA employee?

Just because he was sitting in the simulator does that necessarily mean he is a NASA employee? No, it does not. He could easily be a contractor and hence not covered by the non-endorsement rules.

hey, quit picking on me

hey, quit picking on me guys...by the way, I'm writing this on a PC with Ubuntu.

Puhleeze

You're not doubt baiting us into replying. If that's your gambit congratulations.

Otherwise, I anyone working for a rag such as this has the authority to comment on advertising.

I suggest you stick to what you know, i.e, writing lame tech reviews.

If you really want to talk marketing and advertising... well never mind.

Peace.