Slashdot Mirror
A Decade of Dreadful Microsoft Ads
Barence writes "PC Pro has rounded up the most howlingly awful examples of ads churned out by Microsoft over the past decade. The selection includes the cringe-worthy Gates & Seinfeld ads — where Gates looks like he’s delivering his lines with the help of a cattle prod — to the terrible Windows 7 party ads (an 'F1 key for social inadequates,' according to PC Pro), to the one that got away: an excellent in-house training video produced by The Office's Ricky Gervais."
I've seen that Windows 1.0 video before, but is that a real commercial? I don't think I have ever seen any authoritative source information included with it. It looks more like a humorous self-parody that was made much later.
On a side note: if it is real, did Balmer ever have hair?
I don't know why everybody hates them.
Even better - how could we forget Songsmith? That was a point so low, it had its own gravity well and Hawking had to write a theory about it. They'd do well if they went "out there" to some of the more creative users for ideas and such; interacting with the userbase could help a bit and would have prevented the Songsmith or Windows 7 cringefests earlier on. And it's not that hard to find... Example
Point being, they need to think beyond the boundaries of Redmond. Just because a manager approves one of their adverts doesn't mean the public will...
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
When I play with Windows 7 and the new Office Beta, I see dozens of my pet peeves fixed, and I'll give a lot of credit to those Mac vs. PC ads. The most effective ads for Microsoft -- ever!
--Greg (In some sense of "for" of course) :-)
In the early days of Linux (and still somewhat not, though less common) a common thread here on Slashdot was that Microsoft succeeded because of 'marketing'. What about dinosaurs with neckties made you want to buy Office? Or some girl projectile vomiting made you think IE was a good browser?
Microsoft succeeded by knowing that network effects are important, and making sure everyone who could possibly run their software had it, thereby locking them in for the long term. Once they had that dominance, then they could force people to do things illegally. For those that simply say 'monopoly' and do no other analysis, remember in the early days Microsoft was just one of a few companies, and only once network effects started rolling in did they achieve dominance where they could dictate.
Linux did itself no favors by screaming 'marketing' every time there was a comparison against Windows when they could have thought how to get those network effects and push out on the desktop somewhat.
You're not the only guy. I thought those ads had an offbeat sort of charm. Better still, they had the potential to stake out brand territory for Microsoft where Apple would have a tough time attacking them - where Apple would have to tread carefully in order to avoid looking "uncool" or like they don't get the humour.
I think Microsoft gave up on that series far, far too early. Branding takes time. Changing course for a huge brand behemoth like Microsoft takes even more time.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
If the double-zeros belonged to anyone, it had to be Google. They went from nothing to a household word, and they didn't even have to advertise to do it.
--Greg
I like informative advertising -- here's the products, here's the pricing. Grocery store inserts in the paper are very useful advertising. This also extends to informing people about a product. "Did you know this was available? Now you do and know where to get it if you want it." Direct, honest, acceptable. Persuasive advertising makes me see red, the stuff that's trying to create demand for a product. You're trying to create an emotional response in me, you're trying to use sex, vanity, greed, and jealousy to make me buy your shit? Unacceptable. And when you get some fucking corporate behemoth like an insurance company put out a little heartwarming mini-story and try to link their brand with that emotional response, that blatant kind of manipulation makes me want to start supporting capital punishment.
The funny thing about advertising is that the numbers are so soft. How do you judge the effectiveness of a marketing campaign? How can Coke tell if the billboard down the street is doing anything to keep their brand going? I really wonder that when I see billboards advertising stuff like a CNN show or a local comic with a limited engagement. How can they possibly measure the effectiveness of that ad? At least on the web there's a chance of measuring the clickthroughs though that does nothing to show the people who remembered the url and typed it in directly later. There's really no hard, scientific way to measure this shit. If a product does well, do you credit the quality of the product or the advertising? There's too many variables.
I suppose dog and pony shows can convince idiot IT directors to make expensive decisions. "Let's go with this vendor. They put out a nicer lunch spread than the other one." But is that always effective? I can't think of a Microsoft ad that informed me of anything useful. All the vague, emotional appeals they make could apply just as easily to the current product or the one that came before. There isn't a single Microsoft product I look forward to using, I simply use them because they're what everyone else is using and there's not much choice. It'd be like the fucking water company advertising to get people to drink more water -- haven't got much of a choice there, bub. Exchange 2007? No compelling need to upgrade. We'll do it when we have to, probably when we're ready to upgrade the mail server. There's no compelling need. Server 2008? No need. Windows 7? When we upgrade or desktops. Maybe when XP EOL's but everything works well enough for now. Office 2007? Yay, you get a million rows in Excel but pay for it with ribbons.
I guess that explains Microsoft's advertising problem. If you need their products, you already have them. The only reason to upgrade from XP will be when it's EOL'd with no more security patches and all your new desktops are coming with W7 licenses. 64-bit support and tons of ram? The average worker still doesn't need it. Those who do can run XP 64. When there's no good bullet points to sell on, all you've got left are vague emotional appeals.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
There's at least one awesome microsoft ad:
Life is short
Brilliant enough to excuse all the others, really.
For years I have been surprised by MS's inability to create a decent ad. Having been to a handful of MS conferences over the years, I have also noted that the warm-up videos are also first rate, so obviously there are people at MS who "get it" and can oversee the commission of decent advertising.
I was recently puzzled by Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" ads, and really, MS's failure to push what was a really effective ad. They've been smarting for years for from the Mac-PC ads, and they've finally got something that hits the competition similarly below the belt (advertising press reported Apple execs were pissed). MS essentially completes the ad run and then shelves the campaign.
For whatever reason, MS's advertising mentality is just not aggressive and cutthroat.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
No, not really. Most people wouldn't have a clue who he is. You don't interact with enough plebes if you think his face is iconic.
Ask 10 random people to name a few of the richest people on the planet.
Bill Gates' name will be mentioned, and most people certainly know what he looks like. They also know - even if only in broad terms - that he made his money off of software. Lots of people still think he's in charge of Microsoft, and it's only the geekier folks that know he stepped down a while back.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
I remember watching a roast of Jerry Stiller (Ben Stillers dad, the obnoxious loud father of George Costanza on Seinfeld) and Jason Alexander was MC'ing the deal. When asked where Michael Richards and Julia Louis-Dreyfus were and why they weren't there for the roast, Jason's only reply was (and I paraphrase):
They're resting. Their shoulders are sore after holding Jerry Seinfeld up for so many years.
While I really enjoyed Seinfeld as a show, I can't say that I found Jerry Seinfeld himself all that funny. It really was the writing/ideas (no doubt mostly from Larry David) and his supporting cast that gave the show most of its humour.
~jaraxle