Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Microsoft Television

Microsoft Causes Internal Family Strife 543

Posted by kdawson
from the what-were-they-thinking-if-anything dept.
techmuse writes "Fresh from its ad featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld eating churros and discussing shoes, Microsoft has introduced a new advertisement in which the aging former CEO and comedian take up residence with a family, causing infighting and malicious plots by the family members. Although the ad does not mention Microsoft's operating system directly, it does mirror the real world experience of the company's products — appearing where not wanted, hard to remove, causing administration headaches, and finally being forced out in hopes of getting one's living space back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Causes Internal Family Strife

Comments Filter:
  • by gadabyte (1228808) on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:47AM (#24977377)

    holy flamebait summary, batman!

    • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:50AM (#24977445)
      Wait until you actually watch the video - stupid, unfunny, lame, pointless.
      • by emag (4640) <slashdot.gurski@org> on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:54AM (#24977517) Homepage

        Commenting on the video, or Seinfeld's "comedy" in general?

      • by asg1 (1180423) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:03AM (#24977653)
        I disagree... I thought this one was good for a few laughs. Yes it is a commercial but how many commercials do you actually laugh at? Again, like the first ad, Microsoft just got many to watch it and talk about it; thus it was successful. Besides, do you really think they are trying to reach out to the average slashdotter? Remember that these ads aren't targeted at us.
      • by MMC Monster (602931) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:06AM (#24977737)

        Actually, I found parts of it pretty funny.

        It does accentuate how out of touch both Seinfeld and Gates are (and even mentions that fact).

        You would have no idea that it's a commercial about an OS.

        In fact, you can run the same commercial and put a picture of Tux at the end, with the slogan "Keep uninvited pests away" (or something like that; I'm not a marketing guy) and be quite effective.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Watch this like a 5 minute Seinfeld episode and not like a commercial and I think it's hilarious.

        • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday September 12, 2008 @11:38AM (#24979211) Homepage

          You would have no idea that it's a commercial about an OS.

          I guess it's not really an ad for an Windows, but rather an ad for Microsoft in general. To clarify ads these days are rarely about the product. Really, the next time you're watching TV, watch all the ads carefully, and ask yourself regarding each one, "What does this tell me about the product?"

          Established brands rarely tell you anything about the product unless they're introducing something new. For example, Coke commercials. They might have someone holding a coke bottle or maybe even taking a sip, but the commercial doesn't have any "information" about Coke. McDonald's is the same way. Unless they're introducing a new sandwich or something, they don't talk about the product. They just show someone holding the bag or taking a bite out of the sandwich. But you know what? Everyone who takes a bite of the Big Mac or a sip of that Coke have some things in common: They're happy and attractive and having fun!

          Current advertising theory holds that there's no point in giving people information, because people don't make "rational decisions". They make their decisions based on emotional attachments. So what advertisers aim to do is to attach a positive emotion with a product on a subconscious level, so that when you think about that product, you feel good. That good feeling makes you more likely to buy that product.

          The holy grail of advertising is to be a part of an entire subculture that's attractive and happy and cool, a subculture that people want to be a part of, and to have their product be synonymous with their product. They want to make you feel like you can't be a part of the culture that you belong to without owning that product. They want you to feel like you're not yourself without that product.

          Now I don't know how successful these ads will be, but it's clear that they're trying to remake the Microsoft image. They're trying to construct the emotional response you feel when you think about Microsoft, because the current emotional response from a lot of people consists mainly of frustration. So instead, they're trying to make Gates, as the embodiment of Microsoft, come across as a quirky fun guy that you'd like to have around even if he is a little hapless. He may as well be saying, "Hey, I'm not perfect, but I'm kind of nice and fun and even helpful, so invite me into your home."

          • by Valiss (463641) on Friday September 12, 2008 @12:09PM (#24979661) Homepage

            If you have to clarify an ad, you've already lost.

            • by Massacrifice (249974) on Friday September 12, 2008 @12:34PM (#24980155)

              You have to clarify an ad when you get upset by it and don't know why. Most of the time, this is because you're not part of the target demographic. This is the case here, with a general-public/family oriented/techno-unsavvy ad vs. Slashdot readerbase. I think GP's ad deconstruction is quite acccurate in this regard, and helps explain where MS might be going next.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              If people are talking about your ad on Slashdot, you've already won.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Established brands rarely tell you anything about the product unless they're introducing something new. For example, Coke commercials. They might have someone holding a coke bottle or maybe even taking a sip, but the commercial doesn't have any "information" about Coke. McDonald's is the same way. Unless they're introducing a new sandwich or something, they don't talk about the product. They just show someone holding the bag or taking a bite out of the sandwich. But you know what? Everyone who takes a bite of the Big Mac or a sip of that Coke have some things in common: They're happy and attractive and having fun!

            Yes, all those Coke and McDonalds commercials don't talk about the product, but show the product being consumed by attractive happy people. This crap only shows the product twice (the xbox the kid is playing, although it's apparently a game that will never be released) and the logo at the end. So really, the real product is not ever shown in the video. "Microsoft" the company is represented by Bill Gates, I suppose, but he is neither happy or attractive, and neither are any of the other people in the ad. In

          • by CodeBuster (516420) on Friday September 12, 2008 @12:22PM (#24979905)
            Where are my mod points when I need them, the parent is bang on target. The holy grail of marketing, at least according to the presently ascendant theory, is to market and sell a brand image and NOT the products associated with that brand. This is far more profitable, assuming that it can be accomplished, because good products come and go and they cost money to research, develop, and produce, but if I can sell you on the concept of a brand then you will buy almost anything, regardless of quality and especially in the short run, that is associated with that brand. The real value and the highest potential for profit are selling the brand, not the products. Now, obviously this does not always work and it doesn't work on everyone, particularly not on intelligent people who think for themselves, but it does work on Joe Sixpack and that is the majority of the non-niche markets. Microsoft is attempting to develop and expand their brand so that they can sell their products to an American public that is becoming increasingly ignorant about how technology actually works and concentrates mostly on what is cool or in style over functionality.
        • by VeNoM0619 (1058216) on Friday September 12, 2008 @11:51AM (#24979387)
          I found quite a few bits funny. Gates reading a bedtime story to the kid about polymorphism was pretty hilarious (from a Geek/Nerd stand point) "Does this story have monsters?" "Yes, but there's a firewall".

          If you can't find the hidden message about "bringing people together", and how they talk about it near the end. It is an advertisement about the OS, but a more "off" way to market it, like MOST COMMERCIALS.

          I didn't watch the other commercial, but I thought it was a nice -entertaining- way to spend 4 minutes of tv ads than other commercials.
      • Those would be kind words applied to the first one, but I enjoyed this one.

      • by qoncept (599709)
        Sounds like Jerry Seinfeld alright. Microsoft sure is getting everything wrong.
      • by ArcherB (796902)

        Wait until you actually watch the video - stupid, unfunny, lame, pointless.

        While I agree that it was stupid, lame, and VERY pointless, I did find it funny.

      • by JWSmythe (446288) * <jwsmythe@jws[ ]he.com ['myt' in gap]> on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:28AM (#24978089) Homepage Journal

            No, no. There's an underdog spin on it.

            They are staying with a family. The family obviously boards other people. The grandmother has been living there for 12 years. Maybe this is a reference to Windows 95 being ancient, but still kicking around the house.

            While they are there, the little girl gets upset that she lost her room. Here they are calling non-Microsoft OS's bratty little girls.

            The little girl gets her revenge by planting the stolen item in Gates' pack. This is either saying that other OS's use deception to get what they want. Gates, being the better man just leaves to let the bratty girl have her way, because there are bigger things to come.

            I like understanding subtle undertones to what appears to be obvious. I also like listening to the words of "Hotel California". :)

        • by s1lhouette (1319369) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:53AM (#24978471)

          There is more subtle undertones that i would not have expected. When the delivery guy arrived, Gates took the food without paying. I find it kind of odd that Microsoft would portray their spokesmen as a thief. Is this Microsoft admitting that they take what they want and that they have no morals?

          • by Daimanta (1140543) on Friday September 12, 2008 @11:12AM (#24978779) Journal

            food FreeBSD IP stack

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by catmistake (814204)

            no. The point is comedy. Its simply not funny to do what is expected... to pay and tip the delivery guy. And finally there is acknowledgment that people do not tip delivery guys. Not sure if you know, but delivery guys pay for the delivery with tips. So, its not really right to order an $8 delivery 7 miles from the restaurant then tip a dollar... delivery guy loses money on gas. Regardless of the amount for the food, tip should be minimum the price of a gallon of gas unless you live within a mile of the res

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by s73v3r (963317)
            The funny thing is, something like that did happen. Tom Brokaw was interviewing Bill Gates in a small town in South Dakota (Watertown, I think), about something the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was doing with small town libraries and the Internet. They conducted part of the interview in a coffee shop/cafe there. The interview ended, and they both left. A little while later, Brokaw realizes that his people didn't pay the cafe. Neither did Gates'. The world's richest man and perhaps the most famous per
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Mike89 (1006497)

        Wait until you actually watch the video - stupid, unfunny, lame, pointless.

        What'd you expect, it's supposed to counter the "I'm a Mac" ads.

  • Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmpeax (936370) * on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:48AM (#24977389)

    Microsoft's operating system - appearing where not wanted, hard to remove, causing administration headaches, and finally being forced out in hopes of getting one's living space back.

    Well you know you could just avoid giving Microsoft all this publicity if you feel so strongly about the quality of their products.

    As for the advert, I thought it was quite funny. It didn't mention any specific products, but that's not really the point: the very personification of Microsoft (good ol' Bill) is given a soft, friendly image that will inevitably reflect onto the company and its products. It's got a kind of quirkiness that works really well - this will no doubt help improve sales of more personal product line (such as the Zune) that aren't really compatible with the hygienic, corporate image of Windows and Office.

    • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy@@@tpno-co...org> on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:53AM (#24977489) Homepage

      You wrote this advertising scheme, didn't you?

      An ad which doesn't mention a product is hardly an ad, wouldn't you say? It is extremely hard to write a 30 second spot which not only pulls in your audience, but captivates them enough to work out subtle meanings. Hell, most 2 hour movies can't do this.

      I'm not quite sure what MS is after with these spots, but I truly hope it's not what you claim; that would indicate a level of incompetence which even I wouldn't expect out of MS.

      • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lord_Frederick (642312) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:04AM (#24977697)

        If the ad itself is being talked about, then it has been successful on some level.

        • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Coryoth (254751) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:18AM (#24977897) Homepage Journal

          If the ad itself is being talked about, then it has been successful on some level.

          While there is some truth to that, I'm not sure exactly how successful you can judge an ad to be simply because it gets talked about. I mean an ad that consisted of a long, detailed and graphic discussion between Gates and Ballmer as to their preferred methods for torturing and maiming kittens would probably get talked about; I'm not sure such an ad could be considered as positive for Microsoft. An series of ads that has Bill Gates working his way through the Microsoft product line, explaining how bad each product is, highlighting several flaws, and then laughing over how the public has been so easily duped into buying it ... that would probably get plenty of people talking about it; again, I'm not sure that's likely to be judged a successful campaign. There's more to advertising and marketing than getting talked about -- the context and nature of the discussion does matter. If people are talking about these ads with regard to how out of touch they demonstrate Microsoft to be (as has been the case in a lot of conversation I've read and heard), I am not sure that actually count as a net positive for Microsoft.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by HangingChad (677530)

          If the ad itself is being talked about, then it has been successful on some level.

          Someone delusional can get people talking about their behavior but that doesn't make them a success. People were talking about Vista after it first came out. Lot of people talked about Bob and Clippy.

          I think it's like watching a train wreck. Lot people are going to talk about it, but that doesn't mean they're going to go, "Hey, let's take the train to grandmas this weekend!"

      • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jmpeax (936370) * on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:16AM (#24977877)

        that would indicate a level of incompetence which even I wouldn't expect out of MS

        You vastly underestimate the power of advertising. Consider that most people who see these ads aren't anti-Microsoft Slashdotters, but people who have other interests and for whom Microsoft products are just part of the scenery along with different cars, cereals and soft drinks.

        These adverts are designed to make Microsoft stand out on the skyline by associating with it a more comfortable, personal feeling.

        • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Yvanhoe (564877) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:42AM (#24978271) Journal
          That's a common mistake geeks make : ads (along with most political speeches) are not made for people who actually parse sentences. They are for people who just listen to them and let their "gut feelings" influence their actions. The goal is to make an instinctive neural pathway for ideas : Microsoft BillGates FriendlyGuy makes people feel more comfortable about Microsoft and directly confront the image that we convey here that Microsoft MonopolisticMonster. We are less efficient because we base our arguments on facts, not formulas.

          Basics of marketing : if the product name and the quality you want to associate it with are more than 3 words away, your sentence fails, whatever its point is. Why do you think that you here so much the "McSame" and "Obama Ben Laden" neologism ? They are far more efficient at negative image association than any well weighted argument.

          Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate it when I am confronted to this kind of argument. But I have to admit that as much as I would like Microsoft to listen to geeks when it comes to fact, geeks should take a lesson from Microsoft when it comes to marketing.
      • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PJ1216 (1063738) * on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:38AM (#24978227)
        You're making an incorrect generalization about ads.

        Ads don't have to sell a product. But they do have to sell something. Brand is a perfectly reasonable thing to sell.

        In these ads, they are selling their brand. look at the icon next to the summary here. Bill Gates as a borg. This is *not* the image MS wants to be associated with. So they're just making silly commercials. There are THOUSANDS of commercials that do just this and are successful. Remember Quiznos first commercials, "We're like the guy who invented pants."

        People attacking these ads are mainly attacking these ads because they attack ANYTHING microsoft does. The ads are completely fine. Their products are fine. You don't like them, thats ok. There are millions of products that don't appeal to everyone. That does *not* mean they're bad. It just means they don't appeal to you, but if a product is as successful as MS's products, they obviously appeal to someone. Some people ACTUALLY like them and weren't somehow roped in by monopolistic practices or something which I'm sure someone will throw out there to explain the only reason Microsoft is 'successful.'
    • by timster (32400) on Friday September 12, 2008 @09:57AM (#24977557)

      Personally, I don't think people are getting it -- the idea is to tear down the image of Microsoft as a savvy, omnipotent monolith by demonstrating that they can get totally taken by an ad agency.

    • by FudRucker (866063)
      RE:"As for the advert, I thought it was quite funny"

      funny? only slightly, but i still dont want to buy or use vista...

      even though microsoft of ms-windows-vista is not mentioned there still is a ms-windows logo in the closing screen...
    • Re:Advertising (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheNecromancer (179644) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:04AM (#24977685)

      I'm not sure that personifying Gates will appeal to the masses. I saw this ad with my 11-year old daughter, and the first thing out of her mouth was "Whoa! Bill Gates is OLD!!!"

      It's hard to relate to someone when they are ancient (and you are young). Why do you think the Apple guy is young while the Vista guy is older in Apple's TV spots?

      'Nuff said.

    • by Bemopolis (698691)
      It didn't mention any specific products, but that's not really the point: the very personification of Microsoft (good ol' Bill) is given a soft, friendly image that will inevitably reflect onto the company and its products.

      Yup, it worked gangbusters when they took that approach with the OS itself. Microsoft BOB changed the world.

  • by Dzimas (547818)

    Dear Bill and Jerry: It's not enough to bumble around and admit you made mistakes, especially in such a high profile campaign. The *only* way that this ad series could turn things around is if they get to the end and reveal that MS has been working on a rock-solid replacement, and that it's available immediately. That, of course, is an impossibility. At best, we'll get vague promises that something better is coming soon (either that, or Seinfeld will sport a Tux t-shirt in the final sequence).

    Microsoft is c

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jonnythan (79727)

      I find that the biggest problem with Vista is its image.

      I recently went from XP to Vista and couldn't be happier with a desktop OS. I use Ubuntu and Mandriva on the desktop on a regular basis, and build and maintain desktop machines with all four OSes on them, as well as run Ubuntu and Debian (and Solaris) on servers.

      But Vista is a solid, fast, smart desktop OS. It's by far the best PC desktop OS out there. I was surprised when I tried it out and found out that it's quick, clever, and stable.

      So, that said,

  • by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:00AM (#24977617)
    guys who got that way by being in the right place at the right time. Gates being around when IBM needed to buy an OS and Seinfeld when the US wanted an unfunny comic on TV.

    A possible way to make this video funny would have been to have the family demand their monthly rent: $1,000,000.00 - each. Upon which, Gates and Seinfeld open their wallets and pay in cash or open their wallets and have nothing and just say we're broke can we pay next month.

  • Great summary :-) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Peter Simpson (112887) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:01AM (#24977631)

    I'd like to see them visit a family with a nerdy kid who uses a MythTV box.

    "Yeah, I used to use Windows, but it wouldn't record all the shows I told it to -- something about a "broadcast flag content protection error". Ever since I replaced it with Myth, I've had no more problems.".

  • Is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darundal (891860) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:03AM (#24977665) Journal
    ...or does anyone get a "Napoleon Dynamite" vibe from these ads? If that is what they are shooting for, no wonder they are so boring.
    • by jmpeax (936370) *

      does anyone get a "Napoleon Dynamite" vibe from these ads? If that is what they are shooting for, no wonder they are so boring.

      Maybe you're not their target demographic? Maybe the teenagers looking to buy a new MP3 player are?

  • The Length? (Score:2, Insightful)

    Anyone else confused about the 4 1/2 minute length?! For a single ad? They must have to buy complete commercial blocks to run this thing in.

    No room for anyone but MS with that length. But I guess that's been their philosophy since the 80's.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by JeremyGNJ (1102465)
      Its not that uncommon. They will break up the commercial into several small sets that you will see over and over again.

      So you might see one 30sec spot that just has the part at the dinner table, etc.

      They do this alot with superbowl commercials. During the Superbowl you might see a 1.5 minute commercial, and then for months after you only see parts of it.
  • Selling the big lie (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:08AM (#24977765)

    Microsoft did not connect billions. They did not create TCP/IP, SMTP, the Web, or much of anything else.

    They have ridden the wave with mediocre email apps and web browsers, but that's not much to crow about.

    ( And you would not have to crawl under a car to diagnose a blown head gasket, so there )

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, because TCP/IP, SMTP, and the Web are so valuable without an OS. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft did connect billions by putting an OS on the desktop that made those technologies worth something to Joe Average.

      • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday September 12, 2008 @12:43PM (#24980337)

        Yeah, because TCP/IP, SMTP, and the Web are so valuable without an OS. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft did connect billions by putting an OS on the desktop that made those technologies worth something to Joe Average.

        Let's give credit where it is due. But only where it's due. Microsoft didn't invent the Internet. They didn't make the Internet possible nor did they even make it popular. And they didn't provide the only viable platform.

        What they did do is provide one of the key components Compaq needed to start the Clone market and prime the pump for the commodity hardware market we enjoy today. It is possible someone else would have done it if it wasn't for Microsoft (CP/M was essentially the business model for DOS). But it wasn't someone else who did it - it was Microsoft.

        But be careful how far you take that praise.

  • Not laugh out loud funny, but at least it had its moments.

    I'm still clueless where the humor was meant to be in the first one.

    • by will_die (586523)
      Guess I will how to lower my expectations for this one.
      The first was was funny not in a comical way but in a someone actually produced this. Sort of like the TV show American Dad or the way people rubberneck a major accident; it may not be something you want to admit to seeing but you know you want to see it.
  • I'll say, this one is definitely much better than the last. I still find Bill Gates to be way too wooden. I'm not asking for him to be really loose, but he barely moves. He looks like someone who just froze when a camera got pointed at him.

    That said, like the last one, I don't like the ending. Those little bits "if blah blah blah then do X" bits just don't work for me. I'd much prefer the commercials if they just left that bit out.

    Still, much improved. Let's see what the next one is.

  • uhm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sveard (1076275) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:12AM (#24977823) Homepage

    It's good to know that I can come to slashdot anytime for fair and balanced news.

    Oh wait, there's nothing fair or balanced about this. It's not even news.

  • What I got from the first commercial was:
    Jerry represents a brainless Microsoft customer who is destined to take first place in the Darwin Awards. His head is so full of idiotic ideas that when Bill Gates wants to sell him a "sweet and chewy" PC, he's first in line to break his teeth.

    The second commercial seemed well summed up by this article. A cost/benefit analysis of a Seinfeld/Gates stay is like my experience installing XP: You can explicitly tell them twice to stay off the internet and use an assign

  • He's a cool guy, but I wonder where this is going.

  • by burnitdown (1076427) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:19AM (#24977927) Homepage Journal

    The family having a son who's into emo music, dresses in women's jeans, is bicurious and self-obsessed in a flood of his own drama should do nicely.

  • kdawson fud (Score:3, Insightful)

    by justinlee37 (993373) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:24AM (#24978005)
    That's a pretty misleading headline, kid.
  • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot@@@davidgerard...co...uk> on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:27AM (#24978061) Homepage

    *facepalm*

    How about W.C. Fields [today.com] for the next one?

    We can work all the way back to Aristophanes if need be. Never let anyone say Microsoft's "out of touch" with the "hipsters."

  • Direct Youtube Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alexpkeaton1010 (1101915) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:39AM (#24978243)
    Because I don't like the plugging of a Mac site for a MS video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBWPf1BWtkw [youtube.com]
  • by pubjames (468013) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:40AM (#24978245)

    It is obvious that these ads are about changing people's perception of Microsoft, from a big scary company to something that is personable, friendly and helpful. In that sense, they probably work really well.

    However, is that what Microsoft really needs? To have a great business you have a great product and use marketing to shout about why it is great. Microsoft have a bad product (in Vista) and are trying to change the perception of the company with funny ads. It looks like a pretty crappy position to be in to me.

     

  • Brand Awareness (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jodka (520060) on Friday September 12, 2008 @10:52AM (#24978463)

    Microsoft increasingly has the problem with advertising that their is no actual reason to choose their products over the competition, therefore they have difficulty promoting their products in advertising by making any rational appeal.

    If the purpose of advertising is to increase brand awareness, what is the purpose of advertising if you are Microsoft, you own the market, and everyone is already aware of your brand?

    Maybe that Microsoft is a monopoly explains the new strategy of not mentioning their product in advertisements. Some sharp advertising executive realized that Microsoft did not need to mention their own products in commercials because everyone has already heard of them. Then he sold that idea to Balmer.

    Though while Microsoft is in the enviable position having already achieved near 100% global product awareness, they face a new challenge that in addition to the public being aware of their products it is increasingly aware that those products suck.

    Exhibit A is the the idiotic Mojave Experiment campaign which confronted that problem directly. Mistake 1: It was a public acknowledgment by Microsoft of widespread public discontentment with Vista and Mistake 2: It was an unconvincing attempt at persuasion using the pseudoscience of pop psychology. The argument goes like "you all think Vista sucks and we are going prove scientifically in a laboratory that you do not really think that Vista sucks as much as you think it sucks.

    The Mojave campaign had the problem that it was about how people thought that Vista sucks and that is not a fact that you want to be advertising to your customers. By being about nothing, the Seinfeld+Gates campaign does not make the same mistake. But it still fails to overcome the problem which is that Vista is a bad product and their is growing public perception of that. Their are subtle and indirect forms of promotion. Consumers are irrational. Based on the advertisements which I see, I am pretty sure that male brains actually work in way which makes "Wow, the woman in that photo holding that bottle has great tits, therefore I will drink Budweiser." An argument to purchase a product can be both convincing and irrational, but Microsoft's new ads are not in any way convincing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 0xABADC0DA (867955)

      Microsoft should take lessons from other groups that have nothing rational to say in commercials:

      1) It is offensive to operating systems that you called Aero "lipstick on a pig".
      2) Apples are elite, because they work better and are easier to use
      3) Steve Jobs is the biggest celebrity in the world.
      4) Apple's come with Arabic language support; they're terrorists.
      5) The 'Apple Tax' is higher than the 'Microsoft Tax'; they want to raise your taxes.
      6) far more new lines of code written for Vista than OS X; Vista

  • by ScottMcD (1339445) on Friday September 12, 2008 @11:00AM (#24978625)
    Why does this story not link to the original video at Microsoft's website? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ [microsoft.com]
  • by wizkid (13692) on Friday September 12, 2008 @12:24PM (#24979927) Homepage

    Subject line says it all.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...