Jaffe on Seinfeld on Gates on Microsoft on CP+B

The blogosphere has been lit up over the past week or two regarding the new campaign from American Express Microsoft, featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Steve Ballmer Bill Gates. The reaction, with few exceptions, has been decidedly negative - scathingly so.

And now, we find out that the campaign is done:

That campaign either ran its course (if you believe Microsoft) or flopped (if you believe the critics) and is being replaced with an ad that will try to subvert Apple's famous "I'm a Mac," "I'm a PC" series.

(Seinfeld was reportedly paid $10million for 3 spots....2 have aired and 1 is in the "can" waiting for better days)

...or is it? Mashable via Gizmodo says otherwise. Of course, the source in question is a trusted CP+B person, who clearly has no agenda whatsoever.

I should point out that according to this LA Times Blog post, the needle of perception did move a tad, but how statistically accurate and representative this is, I'm not sure: That piece (New York Times) quotes a brand perception expert saying that Microsoft's image started out 25% positive and 13% negative, but by Tuesday was 28% positive and 8% negative. You have to walk before you can run, I guess.

I thought I'd use this platform to offer some new commentary and constructive criticism to all parties concerned.

 

1. The Seinfeld-Gates spots were not great at all. Here's why: Jerry Seinfeld was a bad, bad casting call. He's associated with American Express (so is Superman). He represents borrowed interest and sends out a signal that the brand cannot sell itself without a celebrity crutch. He's also somewhat old; yesterday's news
2. The choice of Bill Gates was a bad, bad casting call. Gates doesn't work at Microsoft anymore. He's moving on. The company is in great hands in the form of Joanne Bradford Steve Ballmer, remember? Gates is off to focus on humanitarian efforts that save the world, not the Smiths in Peoria.
3. The spots were trying to be too clever for their own good. They were disconnected (I'll come back to this) and confusing. It is a flawed strategy to believe that people care enough about advertising to wait with baited breath for the next episode in the installment of brand propaganda.
4. As a standalone (and ads should be judged independently, when one considers the massive investment in their per airing production and media costs), they failed to deliver a single reason to believe; a single proof point, brand attribute, call to action or nugget of value.
5. From a blogosphere standpoint, most people got to see the two spots (in their entirety) on the Web....which is a good thing as viewers at least got to bust beyond the standardized television constraints. That said, I was horrified when I actually saw one of the spots (I believe I was watching Fringe at the time), paired down to fit the advertising pod, end with the words, "to be connected." Huh? I got the swarmy association between "to be continued" and "to be connected", as well as Microsoft's equity associated with connectivity/networking etc., but as point 4) alludes to, why are we assuming people care enough to wait for the next installment in a series of ADVERTISEMENTS? Episodic advertising is just not viable in my opinion anymore. In any event, there should have at least been a URL to go and view all these ads. And there wasn't.
6. Also, before I move on....where were the outtakes? casting calls? deleted scenes? etc? This is such a 101 from about 10 years ago.
7. Back to the blogosphere, all the feedback almost without exception was negative. Have CP+B not learnt their lessons from Deadenbacher? Can Microsoft afford to be in the center of negativity? When will agencies learn that "buzz" is not good when it's all bad?
8. The new slogan, "Life without Walls" replaces - I guess - the "your life, our passion" (or something like that) one. Swings and roundabouts. I still think most people refer to Microsoft's "Where do you want to go today?" slogan and positioning, which was all about empowering people in the NOW. In any event, Microsoft set themselves up for further ridicule as you don't have to leap very far to discover the disconnect: A life without walls has no place for Windows. D'oh
9. There's no question here that CP+B are an inextricable part of this firestorm (see point 7). On one hand, when you're on top, everybody wants a piece of you, but on the other hand I feel the agency has to work that much harder to avoid being stereotyped themselves as arrogant, self-serving and possibly even negligent ($10 million for Seinfeld). I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I do think they need to work harder - and that includes engaging the blogosphere in a smarter way - to ensure that they don't distract people from their main agenda: serving the brand.
10. The new new campaign, which replaces the old new campaign of Seinfeld and Gates, features a John Hodgman lookalike (the PC guy in Apple's Mac v PC ads), complaining about being stereotyped. Off the bat, this is a little disingenous, given the stereotyping of the Seinfeld-Gates spots, which patronizingly focus on trying to "blend in with normal people like us." That said, I actually very much like these spots. Finally. I think it's spot on for Microsoft to stand up to Apple and demonstrate it's 97% to 3% (or whatever the ratio is) dominance over Apple by letting its customers do the talking - from famous to infamous; from old to young: from inspirational to aspirational etc.

Here's the spot.

Anyway, the point is that I actually think Microsoft ended up in a good place. Humility goes a long way. Moist and chewy swarminess does not.

PS I'm a PC too and I'm a stud!