Yes, it’s getting noticed and maybe people are clicking on it, but Microsoft’s expensive new powered-by-Seinfeld campaign is looking like the dud that many–including me–predicted it would be, both in strategy and execution.

http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/09/05/microsofts-seinfeld-campaign-random-h umor-no-vista/trackback/

We suppose the ad makes Microsoft seem less stodgy and uptight, which is the image Apple’s Mac vs. PC ads paint of the company. But we can’t see this going a long way towards reversing the popular impression that Vista is buggy and unnecessary. The ads would probably have to, you know, mention Vista to do that.

Presumed Microsoft Business Goals: Grow revenue, protect margins by increasing acceptance/take rate of Vista.

Presumed Marketing/Comm Goals: Fend off criticism and negative perception of Vista.  Counter the effects of PC vs. Mac campaign which have eroded/pigeonholed image of PC/Windows while boosting that of Mac.

Assessment: How does this execution accomplish the above?  It doesn’t.  Autopsy: First, who should use celebrities? Brands that want more name recognition or those that want to draw attention to a new product.  One could infer that Microsoft gave Seinfeld a bunch of money without fleshing out the actual marketing goals and getting him and everyone else on the same page.  In fact one of the key deal points was probably “free reign” and “creative control.”  After all, Jerry doesn’t need the money. So everyone probably assumed the ads would be clever and memorable.

In addition the spot doesn’t even stand on its own as an interesting piece of entertainment.  It is, in a word, inane.  It’s tone is dated.  So there won’t be much of a viral (pass along) halo except for forwarded links accompanied by nasty criticisms of the ad.

Which brings us to the next point below.  The WSJ quotes two branding executives (”those who can’t sell, market; those who can’t market, brand.”) asserting that the ad has done its job by generating chatter.

This point is supported by the following quote: “Most companies would have to spend a billion dollars on advertising to get this kind of attention.”  First, I think he means most unknown companies would even want this level of attention.  Second, Microsoft has already spent billions of dollars over the last 30 years to get “attention.”

Dear branding experts: “Attention” is not the goal.  “Attention” is not, in and of itself, a positive thing.  Microsoft is globally known and doesn’t need more “attention.”  Microsoft needs (a) great products that (b) create a better customer experience, which in turn (c) results in a better perception.  This campaign does nothing to advance those priorities.

Microsoft is breaking the basic premise of Inside-Out Branding by trying to solve a product problem with an advertising solution.  Unfortunately they can’t just paper over the negative perceptions with a big media spend featuring a waning celebrity.

Critics Say Gates-Seinfeld Duo No Laughing Matter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122082676065908265.html?mod=2_1567_leftbox

Despite the negative online chatter about the ad, Microsoft has succeeded in getting people talking about the commercial, ad experts say.

“The initial reaction might be on the fence or leaning negative but the ad did its job,” says Dean Crutchfield, a brand consultant. “Most companies would have to spend a billion dollars on advertising to get this kind of attention.”