LED-holic
Flashlight Enthusiast
I saw the longish video tonight with Seinfeld and Bill Gates. Couldn't understand what the heck it was for, until the end. Still don't make much sense to me but maybe I'm missing something... 
Anyone seen the new Bill Gates / Seinfeld video?
- Thread starter LED-holic
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
DaFABRICATA
Flashlight Enthusiast
Is that popcorn your eating?...or your computer?:duh2:
LED_Thrift
Flashlight Enthusiast
It was a Microsoft commercial. The bending-shoe thing was hard to figure out. I think this commercial has a few bugs in it that will be addressed when the next version of it comes out, after the service-pack.
Pretty awful. In particular that it missed the point completely.
See: You only have to plug a text card at the end: "Get a Mac. The shoe that fits right out of the box" to make an Apple commercial.
An ad that works better as an ad for the competitor is ... a bad ad. (I was going to get something more witty in here. It just didn't seem fitting.)
Oh, I get all that stuff that's intended to be a jab at Apple... Apple stores as a circus, the shoes as uncustomizable Mac OS X, "you're a ten" as in OS X... except that it simply does not work.
See: You only have to plug a text card at the end: "Get a Mac. The shoe that fits right out of the box" to make an Apple commercial.
An ad that works better as an ad for the competitor is ... a bad ad. (I was going to get something more witty in here. It just didn't seem fitting.)
Oh, I get all that stuff that's intended to be a jab at Apple... Apple stores as a circus, the shoes as uncustomizable Mac OS X, "you're a ten" as in OS X... except that it simply does not work.
Last edited:
I loved how they showed Bill Gates and Seinfeld just casually being inside a shoe store, just like any regular folks. 
I guess a commercial showing each of their Personal Shoppers interacting with each other wouldn't have been quite as interesting.
I guess a commercial showing each of their Personal Shoppers interacting with each other wouldn't have been quite as interesting.
greg_in_canada
Flashlight Enthusiast
This comment from Slashdot makes the most sense to me.
---start quote---
Clearly the OP does not really understand what advertising is usually about. Most mass market advertising does not try to provide information, it is providing associations. It presents something enjoyable (here it is assumed that Seinfeld+Gates==Enjoyable) and then presents the branding that they want to be associated with that enjoyable feeling. The crazy part is that this works, and in a weird way can be suggested as actually improving the product. Since the next time the subject of the advertising uses/sees the product, they will subconsiously access that association with enjoyment ... therefore the product is more enjoyable as a result of the advertising.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, but it is how things work in the real world.
Now you can argue either way as to whether Seinfeld+Gates=Delicious ... I didn't actually watch the comercial myself ... but they might be reaching as far a transitive association all the way back to the Seinfeld show, which almost everyone agrees was enjoyable. In any case I don't think there was ever any intent to have actual informative content in the comercial ... they are just "building the brand".
See Seth Godin's book "All Marketers Are Liars"
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/all_marketers_are_liars/ [typepad.com]
or a quick review of it here:
http://www.businesspundit.com/lying-marketing-and-perception/ [businesspundit.com]
---end quote---
There are also lots of "Why pay more" signs in the shoe store which could be a subliminal message about the cost of Apple computers (but doesn't work against Linux).
There are a bunch of Seinfeld/Superman American Express ads on Youtube. This MS ad appears to be trying to replicate that style of ad (though the Amex ads have some sort of Amex saves the day message at the end).
Greg
---start quote---
Clearly the OP does not really understand what advertising is usually about. Most mass market advertising does not try to provide information, it is providing associations. It presents something enjoyable (here it is assumed that Seinfeld+Gates==Enjoyable) and then presents the branding that they want to be associated with that enjoyable feeling. The crazy part is that this works, and in a weird way can be suggested as actually improving the product. Since the next time the subject of the advertising uses/sees the product, they will subconsiously access that association with enjoyment ... therefore the product is more enjoyable as a result of the advertising.
I am not saying that this is a good thing, but it is how things work in the real world.
Now you can argue either way as to whether Seinfeld+Gates=Delicious ... I didn't actually watch the comercial myself ... but they might be reaching as far a transitive association all the way back to the Seinfeld show, which almost everyone agrees was enjoyable. In any case I don't think there was ever any intent to have actual informative content in the comercial ... they are just "building the brand".
See Seth Godin's book "All Marketers Are Liars"
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/all_marketers_are_liars/ [typepad.com]
or a quick review of it here:
http://www.businesspundit.com/lying-marketing-and-perception/ [businesspundit.com]
---end quote---
There are also lots of "Why pay more" signs in the shoe store which could be a subliminal message about the cost of Apple computers (but doesn't work against Linux).
There are a bunch of Seinfeld/Superman American Express ads on Youtube. This MS ad appears to be trying to replicate that style of ad (though the Amex ads have some sort of Amex saves the day message at the end).
Greg
Last edited:
baterija
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,053
The fact that there is even a thread here, let alone 357k views of the ad on youtube, says that there is some validity to marketing that doesn't speak directly about the benefits of the product. Marketing that people actively seek out and discuss brings the product more to mind than a commercial that gets "mentally muted." Bill Gates as a regular guy buying discount shoes with his platinum club card is probably the most interesting part for reshaping Microsoft's corporate image.
I am one of the few that not only didn't like the Seinfeld show, but actively disliked it. In my mind the image of Seinfeld is inevitably linked to the almost overwhelming urge to smack someone and yell "Stop whining!"
Conveniently for Microsoft, images that inspire active dislike don't harm my impression of Vista. 
I am one of the few that not only didn't like the Seinfeld show, but actively disliked it. In my mind the image of Seinfeld is inevitably linked to the almost overwhelming urge to smack someone and yell "Stop whining!"
Conveniently for Microsoft, images that inspire active dislike don't harm my impression of Vista. 
asdalton
Flashlight Enthusiast
I think that those people who will buy a computer based upon vague "associations" from advertising are also the sort who will end up buying the mainstream product regardless--i.e., Windows Vista.
This definitely explains the thinking of the advertising agency.
But there is one problem. Microsoft announced the campaign some time ago. They clearly defined two targets for the campaign: 1. Improve Vista'a image (NOT Microsoft's -- Vista's). 2. Strike back at Apple.
Most people who follow the IT scene knew this and interpreted the ad with this background knowledge. The problem with the ad is that it failed to achieve both targets. It's filled with symbolic imagery that can be interpreted as representing Vista, Apple or Mac OS X. But in most interpretations Apple and Mac OS X come out more positive than Microsoft or Vista.
For instance: The shoe store looks like an Apple store. The idea might have been "Apple store = circus". But then the store is a bargain store. Apple does not really have the image of being cheap. So what's the message here? Apple bargain?
Overall, the ad is a mess. It sends confusing messages, and the makers are not aware of the images they are attempt to improve.
Compare that with the latest Mac-vs-PC ads that Apple released after Microsoft's announcement. Or the older one with the cheerleaders. PC wants to improve its image and hires cheerleaders. But there's a miscommunication, and the cheers are "Mac is #1, PC is #2."
Pretty prophetic. Apple understands Microsoft better than Microsoft itself.
But there is one problem. Microsoft announced the campaign some time ago. They clearly defined two targets for the campaign: 1. Improve Vista'a image (NOT Microsoft's -- Vista's). 2. Strike back at Apple.
Most people who follow the IT scene knew this and interpreted the ad with this background knowledge. The problem with the ad is that it failed to achieve both targets. It's filled with symbolic imagery that can be interpreted as representing Vista, Apple or Mac OS X. But in most interpretations Apple and Mac OS X come out more positive than Microsoft or Vista.
For instance: The shoe store looks like an Apple store. The idea might have been "Apple store = circus". But then the store is a bargain store. Apple does not really have the image of being cheap. So what's the message here? Apple bargain?
Overall, the ad is a mess. It sends confusing messages, and the makers are not aware of the images they are attempt to improve.
Compare that with the latest Mac-vs-PC ads that Apple released after Microsoft's announcement. Or the older one with the cheerleaders. PC wants to improve its image and hires cheerleaders. But there's a miscommunication, and the cheers are "Mac is #1, PC is #2."
Pretty prophetic. Apple understands Microsoft better than Microsoft itself.
LukeA
Flashlight Enthusiast
Any of you guys seen the other commercial starring Gates and Seinfeld?
(Yup, they made another one).
Looks like there'll be a series of such commercials.
There are two new ones. One that ends with somebody stealing a toy giraffe and a very new one that begins with that and ends with them walking down a residential street.
Maybe that's all one commercial, the TV didn't have my full attention.
Yes, that's the one I meant. I think it's the same commercial.
TorchBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
So that's why my brother looked a little confused when he told me about the ad. (He uses a PC, I use a Mac.)
Um... Do you have to use a phallic symbol to do that? :naughty: :kiss:
HarryN
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have seen both commercials - and I liked them. They are tuned to a dry form of humour.
Think about the options they have
a) They hit directly back at mac using apple's "slam the other guy" technique. This is not a good approach, and they avoided it.
b) They use the "come see the softer side of sear's" approach - partially, they did.
c) They frame Gates as less of a monster than some obviously view him - sort of a politician / statesman. This takes the pressure off of MS if the adv. campaign fails. Perhaps he will come off as a bit of a boring 50 year old techno nerd - perhaps that is the goal - certainly better than the monster image some seem to carry.
We have xp, vista, and macs in our house. I still fail to see that one is better than another - imlication - sort of like TVs. Side by side, you can look really closely and see a difference - but in your living room watching TV, they all work. That is the point of the adv - computers are mostly a commodity.
Think about the options they have
a) They hit directly back at mac using apple's "slam the other guy" technique. This is not a good approach, and they avoided it.
b) They use the "come see the softer side of sear's" approach - partially, they did.
c) They frame Gates as less of a monster than some obviously view him - sort of a politician / statesman. This takes the pressure off of MS if the adv. campaign fails. Perhaps he will come off as a bit of a boring 50 year old techno nerd - perhaps that is the goal - certainly better than the monster image some seem to carry.
We have xp, vista, and macs in our house. I still fail to see that one is better than another - imlication - sort of like TVs. Side by side, you can look really closely and see a difference - but in your living room watching TV, they all work. That is the point of the adv - computers are mostly a commodity.
TorchBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yet you're saying they slammed the "slam the other guy" technique. How is that avoiding the approach?
PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
The term "putting lipstick on the pig" somehow comes to mind.
Apple will always be perceived as a acooler platform because of it's creative slant and the renegade flavor of David vs. Goliath. Microsoft will always be perceived as the Goliath. Gates manager to get MS entranched in the business community early on, and that's been their image ever since - a stodgy, slow to react, ultra conservative company that exists largely for their corporate customer base. Apple's customer base is made up largely of artistic, creative, independent types.
I highly doubt that these ads will change any of this this in the long run. Businesses will continue to flock to MS for office components and artists will continue to flock to MACs.
And of course there's Linux, which seems to be gaining a real foothold in the server world despite the complete lack of any advertising beyond word of mouth.
Apple will always be perceived as a acooler platform because of it's creative slant and the renegade flavor of David vs. Goliath. Microsoft will always be perceived as the Goliath. Gates manager to get MS entranched in the business community early on, and that's been their image ever since - a stodgy, slow to react, ultra conservative company that exists largely for their corporate customer base. Apple's customer base is made up largely of artistic, creative, independent types.
I highly doubt that these ads will change any of this this in the long run. Businesses will continue to flock to MS for office components and artists will continue to flock to MACs.
And of course there's Linux, which seems to be gaining a real foothold in the server world despite the complete lack of any advertising beyond word of mouth.
Last edited:
HarryN
Flashlight Enthusiast
Perhaps I didn't say this quite clearly. My perception is that they AVOIDED using technique "a" - as in, they did not slam apple - maybe they did, and I just missed it. :thinking:
In any event, I think apple should consider adjusting their mac marketing strategy - while sometimes it is funny, I am starting to really find it annoying - as in really annoying, and I have no vested interest in either company.
