Why? I admit that I'm not entirely sure what these commercials are trying to express, but I thought they were both very good.
I'm a long time Amiga/Unix/Mac/anything-but-Windows user, and while I'm not running out to buy a Vista-powered computer after seeing these ads, they do an excellent job of portraying Microsoft as not being evil.
They are certainly more sensible than having Serena Williams or Lebron James tell us that they use Vista. Who cares? They also drive luxury vehicles that I will never afford. Just because some celebrity uses a product doesn't mean I should.
I agree with you. At least these ads are entertaining and make Microsoft seem less evil. Suddenly ending them will look downright stupid.
I dunno, they don't give me warm fuzzy feelings towards Microsoft.
At the most, they give me warm fuzzy feeling towards Bill Gates, but simultaneously reminds me that Bill Gates is no longer in charge of Microsoft -- he's just a doddering old billionaire who in my imagination now spends his whole life wandering around shopping malls and chatting to other semi-retired figures who used to be important back in the 1990s.
I think this is a really unfortunate demonstration of companies not trusting the people they hire. Crispin Porter & Bogusky is one of the best agencies in the world, and they have proven it year after year - there's no doubt they know exactly where they are heading with these ads. If Microsoft is truly balking at letting them "do their thing", it's too bad. CP&B knows what they are doing and Microsoft may continue looking cold and stale if they don't let Alex & Co. do what they do best.
My (completely uninformed) opinion is that the Seinfeld ads were not CP&B's idea. It seems like something that'd come out of msft marketing.
OTOH, what I hear they're doing with the next set of ads -- taking the "I'm a PC" and trying to redefine it -- is 100% CP&B and reminds me of other things they've done recently, such as taking burger king nastiness and making it a manly thing.
I wonder if Microsoft rejected CP&B's initial idea and pushed for this Seinfeld thing instead. After it completely tanked, they were persuaded to go back to the original idea.
Will I stop asking endless questions about Windows ads?
Why didn't you ask the most important question of all: what the heck were they even talking about in those two spots?
(and I STILL don't know how they ended up in that family's house, these commercials are already way too disjointed, it's like middle school where everyone is making fun of you for no real reason, and even so you don't know why)
This is truly disappointing. I had theorized that in light of the strange and arty ads for the zune and this amusing little romp, all of which seem to have only tangental relationships to the products they purport to be promoting, that Bill Gates had moved into a new area of "philanthropic advertising" where the focus is improving your day first and selling products second, if at all.
They help a lot. They're different, which is not what MS is viewed as. They're making MS the topic of conversation, which Apple has been for 5 years now.
They're the leading brand in terms of sales, but mindshare is all Apple, and MS is playing catch up. They have to do something radical, and they are.
It's tricky, though, because Apple so thoroughly DOMINATES this mindset. Microsoft is playing against one of the strongest marketing teams out there, and thus far they seem to be doing a pretty poor job.
How can you tell that? So far all we know for sure is that they're being talked about, and going in, most people were questioning if/how that would happen.
But not in the way they wanted, I'm sure. The ads are supposed to inspire consumers to reconnect with the brand, rather than be a couple of slightly amusing odd couple skits.
Of course there's such a thing as bad publicity. Bad publicity is something your competitors can take advantage of. It scares people away; it attracts nobody new to your product. It raises round criticism when you spend $300 million for it.
Microsoft didn't need a typical ad OR a bad ad. They needed a good campaign. They got a bad one.
Microsoft needs to control the conversation once again. They can't do that with ads saying "Vista is awesome". They have to come from left field, and that's what they're doing.
It's different, and only time will tell for sure, but I think it's possible that we're witnessing the beginning of a campaign that people will be studying in marketing schools for decades. I'm not sure if it will go down as genius or hubris, but you're definitely wrong in writing them off at this point.
"Controlling the conversation," I like that. The ads are way clever, since they connect with the average person in a sitcommy, "yah, but not really," way. It's completely breaking the ad formula all together.
I like that last quote quite a lot. Quite an epigram.
I think that it's POSSIBLE that what you say is true. However, I don't believe that it's very LIKELY. The fact that Microsoft only put out two Seinfeld ads is a sign that things may not be working out well for them, after all. However, I won't roundly mark it a failure yet.
Nah, I believe it was the plan. Those ads take months to produce and land on television. From what I've read, politicians excepted, the lead time on TV ads is generally 3-6 months or so.
Whatever the third ad is, it had to have entered the planning stage before the Seinfeld ads even aired.
> it’s hard to imagine that they paid him $10 million to do two spots
I'm not very familiar with prices for ad campaigns but the one number I know from recently is Adam Carolla being payed $350k for a Taco Bell commercial.
Seinfeld being much much more famous than Carolla, and this campaign having been seen by everyone, it doesn't sound that much. (in comparison of course)
Agreed. He was getting $1,000,000+ per episode of Seinfeld towards then end + the amount he gets for syndication rights is disgusting.
Seeing as how he A) doesn't really need the money and B) probably isn't that interested in Microsoft products, I can see it taking $10,000,000 to get him to show up to shoot the ads.
It really feels like the campaign is missing the punchline though. I can understand the previous 2 ads to build some buzz, but they need to have some form of finale.
I want my moist and cake-like computer - where is it Bill?
There is absolutely zero credibility in the statement that they only intended Seinfeld to do these two ads. That being said, it is entirely reasonable to assume that they planned to shot a couple of ads, see how they went, and switch to Plan B if they were not achieving what MSFT wanted at this point.
I'm a long time Amiga/Unix/Mac/anything-but-Windows user, and while I'm not running out to buy a Vista-powered computer after seeing these ads, they do an excellent job of portraying Microsoft as not being evil.
I find that remarkable.