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.
They were pretty bad too... The commercial with the little kid being brainwashed by Linux fanboys? The Obvious advertisng winners of the 00's were clearly Apple. They got the memorable TV ads and also got the word of mouth thing right. Linux and Micrsoft were the epic failures of the last decade, more so toward the end of the decade.
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.
They missed some hideously-bad ads for Microsoft.
My favorite "bad Microsoft ad" is a 2000 TV ad, which uses the musical theme of "Confutatis Maledictis" from Mozart's Requiem. The screen says "Where do you want to go today?" while the chorus sings "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" ("The damned and accursed are convicted to the flames of Hell").
There's also a 2009 ad featuring a vomiting woman.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
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) :-)
Can anyone really deny this was the decade of Microsoft?
Personal
XP released in 2001, is still going strong and will be for quite some time.
7 released in 2009, is going strong and has received great reviews.
Professional
Server 2003 released in 2003, is still going strong and will be for quite some time.
Server 2008 released in 2008, is going strong and has received great reviews.
There was the Vista speed bump but overall this was without a doubt a Microsoft decade.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
The scene where Gates is reading Code Complete as a bedtime story to the little girl single handedly made me want to buy the book
Have you stopped for, say, one second to consider how obnoxious television would be if every ad were just one second long? Some ad breaks are pushing 10 minutes now. That's 600 ads. And it would be an arms race to see who can make their ad annoying enough in that one second for you to remember it from among the other 599. It's a good idea for one advertiser to do, but a terrible idea for more than that.
Also, advertising by its nature is going to be about what makes your product either unique or better than competing products. You can't tell people what makes your product unique or better unless you contrast it with other products. Even if you don't mention the other product, the contrast is implicit. For instance, "Macs hardly ever crash and require virtually no configuration by the user" doesn't have any meaning without context, and the assumed context is that the listener has used Windows and had a blue screen or two and got lost in configuration screens. I'm sure you'd complain about implicit comparison ads like that, just as you do about the explicit comparisons.
It's not about bashing the other guy. It's about communicating to your audience what it is that makes your product their best choice in a way that they will remember. The "I'm a Mac / and I'm a PC" ads are effective at that. The Gates/Seinfeld ads are good for the latter but I don't think they communicated anything about the product. Microsoft could have learned from the dot-com era Superbowl ads to have avoided that mistake.
It's possible to find an ad that is effective without making any explicit or implicit comparisons to other products. The "Make 7-Up Yours" ads did that just fine, as do many food ads because the market is swamped with different products and you can't say yours is better than each of the others and state reasons for that conclusion, but you can remind people of your product enough to make their mouth water for a taste. But, for products where there is a limited number of competitors and you have objective reasons to say why yours is better than any of theirs, a comparison comes up in every effective ad.
The second one can be found here
Both are excellent comedy imho.
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
Sure, Microsoft has made some terrible ads. And when the get a good one they follow it up with a bad one. The "I'm a PC and I'm 4 and a half" ad was pretty good. The same girl doing the "happy words" ad was terrible.
Lots of people like the Apple "I'm a Mac" ads but I find them to be terrible for a different reason. I think elevating your product relative to your competitor by calling them down directly is mean-spirited and low.
To me those ads make Apple seem slimy. They are what you get when you take an American political attack ad, throw in some whimsy, and add a generous helping of conceited snobbery.
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?
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
I must be the only guy in the world that actually thought those were kinda funny.
If you pay millions of dollars to hire the guy behind what is often hailed as the best situation comedy in the history of TV, then people will expect that the result to be more than just "kinda funny".
If they had done these ads with some unknown comic, then the expectations bar would have been much lower, and the ads might have worked for what they were.
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?
apps like Google desktop became popular so MS put the functionality in Vista. when the crap that is Google desktop slows down your PC it's OK because it's cool when Google organizes your data.
No, it was OK because I chose to install Google Desktop, or not. Indexing came enabled by default by Vista, I didn't chose to have it so much as I had to go out of the way to not have it. Yes it's simple to disable but the ease of that does not enter in the equation.
What is not, and has not ever, been OK is to have a system default that everyone gets that sucks at some fundamental level.
That's also why the Mac is still better security wise, because all of the defaults (no ports open, require password for all admin actions) and the way they are implemented are reasonable for most people.
same thing with Apple. when people got viruses pirating some Mac software it was their fault since p2p is dangerous. when people do the same thing on Windows it means MS sucks
No, when you pirated ONE app on a Mac you got a TROJAN. If you just plugged some WIndows systems into the internet, you got a VIRUS. And although there are exploits, to date you will not get a VIRUS on a Mac just by browsing, where that is still a real possibility on a PC.
Furthermore, on a Mac if you install a TROJAN all it can really do is mess with your files unless you also give it an admin password. Because Vista UAC was a little too aggressive, they blew some holes in the model and now if you install a TROJAN on Windows7 you may also get some of your system infected too.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The point of those adverts is to say 'we listened to user feedback when designing Windows 7.' The problem with them is that they imply that Microsoft didn't listen to user feedback when designing Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.11, NT 3.5, 95, NT 4, 98, 2000, ME, XP, 2003, or Vista. Which might be true, but is probably not exactly what they wanted to tell everyone...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm not sure if people realize it, but the device portion is largely taken care of.
Try upgrading to Windows 7 today, and notice that suddenly your printer or web cam no longer work, because there are no drivers, especially since OEMs are pushing x64 bit versions of Windows 7.
Conversely, Linux supports more hardware than any OS on the planet, from small embedded devices, legacy hardware, desktops, servers, tablets, phones, to super-computers.
The 2.6.33-rc1 kernel even has an OSS Nvidia driver built in now. Most Nvidia and ATI hardware should work out of the box without proprietary drivers (not that I'm opposed to proprietary drivers if they truly work better).
I find most hardware just works out of the box with no work in Linux, but I find myself hunting for drivers in Windows all the time. People are stuck in this mindset that Linux hardware support is lacking, but that just isn't the case.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I set it up the first thing that pisses me off is typing in the admin password every time i install something.
And you prefer the way Microsoft does it because you.... like.... applications installed and running without your knowing? Or you are employed by an antivirus provider or something?
the way the Mac fanboys made it seem is that apple magically protected its OS without me having to do anything
UAC is not Unix-like. UAC is a wrapper around the same horrible implementation of Microsoft's security scheme. So, there is still silent escalation among other things not yet understood. Let this moment stand as the first time UAC is compared to a condom that leaks.
So, yes, there is protection. Just like a condom. You have to type in your password to take the condom off. Otherwise, you are free to use the Internets with no fears commonly associated with Microsoft's STD's.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If Apple's execs were pissed, they were pissed all the way to the bank because Apple had unit sales growth during the laptop hunters run.
Meanwhile, the pc makers showed declines except in the netbook sector. Microsoft's gross revenues take a hit when a netbook is bought as opposed to a laptop. (Not that every netbook sold is a laptop not sold, but Microsoft, in order to fight off the Linux threat in the netbook market, discounted OEM Windows heavily and I wouldn't be surprised if, to break even, Microsoft needed 3 OEM netbook sales to offset an OEM laptop not sold, prior to Win7's release.)
Plus, what was the one common element in all commercials? The glance at and dismissal of the Macs as more expensive. This is not news. Go back and check the Apple/Windows flamewars and you'll note the cost point is conceded and the arguments are whether the differential is overstated and whether the higher cost makes sense because of a higher value. An ad which shows someone making a decision primarily on cost does not really help Microsoft's partners sell their premium high-profit systems. And, in retrospect, it didn't deter enough people from buying a Mac. In a deep recession.
Now I suppose it gave the Windows polemicists plenty of chances to go "neener, neener" as the Apple fanbois and the advertising theoreticians - like me, though I do use and like my Macs - would explain why we thought the ads were not that good, and perhaps that counts as effective. Sure why not? And when did Microsoft have its worst quarter in history?
That was my first take: how could they leave out this classic Microsoft "ad".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
Why did you post this link? That ad was troubling on so many levels.
That is all.
And you prefer the way Microsoft does it because you.... like.... applications installed and running without your knowing? Or you are employed by an antivirus provider or something?
Did you miss the part where he had UAC turned-on in Windows?
He's complaining that at least UAC is a simple "yes/no" permission grant, where Apple's mechanism requires you type your password. (At least that's how I read it.)
UAC is not Unix-like.
Yeah; for one thing it can automatically determine when a app needs elevation instead of Unix-like method of the app shitting all over itself, then you know to re-run it with elevation only after it fails. From my perspective, UAC is better than Unix-like implementations.
UAC is a wrapper around the same horrible implementation of Microsoft's security scheme.
How is it horrible? You can assign much finer-grained security permissions to many more objects than in Unix-like OSes. So, again, from my perspective, Microsoft's security scheme is significantly better than Unix-like implementations.
So, there is still silent escalation among other things not yet understood.
If you don't understand it, maybe you should figure it out instead of just implying that *everybody* is as ignorant as you.
There is no silent escalation-- you have to prove claims like that, you can't just write your train-of-thought directly to the screen.
So, yes, there is protection. Just like a condom. You have to type in your password to take the condom off.
If you like typing a password, you can easily set UAC to require one also. In which case, there's absolutely *no* difference whatsoever between Apple and Microsoft's implementation-- oh, except to raving fanboys like you, the Apple one is "good" and the Microsoft one is "bad".
Comment of the year
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
Except in Nebraska!
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot