Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Causes Internal Family Strife
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."
holy flamebait summary, batman!
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
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.
Amnesty International
I'd rather see him have to admin an MS shop myself.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.".
...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.
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 )
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.
Gates using Emacs,
RMS using Word,
see which head splodes first.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
Why is it when someone hits a nice payday folks who don't like the ad/show/music call them sell outs.
Jealousy.
For my part, I'd advertise Vista for only one million. For ten million, I'd even try to use it!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Because I don't like the plugging of a Mac site for a MS video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBWPf1BWtkw
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.
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Why does this story not link to the original video at Microsoft's website? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/
Facts speak volumes.
As you seem to live in another planet, and one where facts do speak volumes nonetheless, I friendly request that you take me to your leader -- after asserting that your homeworld environment is livable for my pitiful lifeform.
Because, in this planet:
But facts were never and will never be on the list. Not even close.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
holy flamebait summary, batman!
Seriously... Slashdot never has made claims at being unbiased, and I have no excess fondness for MS products (I'm currently writing this from my ubuntu desktop) but still... Frontpaging needlessly harsh opinions best left to tongue-in-cheek office humor don't serve the slashdot community.
If I want vitriolic bias, I'll head to Fox News.
However I am finding that Software freedom comes at a cost of other freedoms.
What exactly is harmed by having more transparency and lower communication costs resulting in more efficient infrastructure?
And those guys who choose windows over Linux aren't as stupid as I once believed, and actually had informed reasons to do so
In every case I've seen it, it's because the C-level people find the name Microsoft socially acceptable explanation for everything technological. Sprinkle ANY useless explanation with Microsoftisms like "microsoft's documentation", "active directory", ".Net", "Exchange server" and they just accept the answer as is. Obligatory star wars reference, "These are not the droids you are looking for." Try it sometime!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Subject line says it all.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
Bill has way more technical skill than most. He certainly has more than Jobs.
And WAAAAAYYY more than Seinfeld.