51–60 of 85 posts
It's ironic. Just months after a much publicized retirement that emphasized "Microsoft after Gates", Microsoft wants to build some brand. And who do they bring back? Is there Microsoft beyond Gates? More broadly, what does it take for a startup to outlive its founders?
I wouldn't recognise Steve Ballmer if I walked by him on the street. Unless he was begging..
Edit: damn, I should refresh before posting...
It's ironic. Just months after a much publicized retirement that emphasized "Microsoft after Gates", Microsoft wants to build some brand. And who do they bring back? Is there Microsoft beyond Gates? More broadly, what does it take for a startup to outlive its founders?
Here's hoping that never happens...
It's ironic. Just months after a much publicized retirement that emphasized "Microsoft after Gates", Microsoft wants to build some brand. And who do they bring back? Is there Microsoft beyond Gates? More broadly, what does it take for a startup to outlive its founders?
A company whose well-being depends on the public charisma of its leaders is buying a ticket for a big crash. But then, software companies are short-lived, compared to any other kind. Software technology is all about getting obsolete quickly while selling the next big thing. The trick is perhaps to keep doing so from within the same company.
All things considered I think a lot of us are overanalyzing these ads. This is a $300 million ad account with crispin + porter + bogusky arguably one of the best ad agencies around. The size of this account ensures that this campaign will stretch over a year or more. I think the overall messege they are going for is fun. Microsoft isn't going to try to win this in the "cool and hip" area, so they are going for the "fun and useful". After this campaign runs for awhile you may have people looking at their pcs as fun ("I can play all my games on a pc but not a mac") and useful ("wow! pcs are everywhere, I know how to use a computer thats everywhere"). While I myself tend to overanylyze the underlying messages with these ads, I have to remember in doing so that just yesterday my mom was talking about how funny the shoe ad was and couldn't wait to check out the new one, so for the average consumer these ads will hit their target over time.
Much better than the first.
Actually, I liked the first one as well. Maybe there were some old geek sentiments involved, but for me it was just a good watch. I liked it more that the pc-vs-mac ad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a scale of 1-10, how funny would it have to be for your next computer not to be a mac? That's why it's a failure.
It's a branding thing for the whole company. The idea is to slightly reduce the ickiness some people feel when the name comes up. Not to directly sell anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a branding thing for the whole company. The idea is to slightly reduce the ickiness some people feel when the name comes up. Not to directly sell anything.
Or, like, it's reintroducing the company to the world. "Now with less evil!"
The fact that both ads have been understood in so many different ways (here, on the blogosphere) shows that the message isn’t clear and in marketing that means trouble. Thus, being funny (for some more, for some less, for some not at all) or being talked about isn’t going to improve Microsoft’s image or sell more licenses (in particular of the problem child Vista). Apple, with the Mac vs. PC campaign, has a clear mes…
I have the opinion that the 'misunderstandings' largely consist of either preconceived notions of what the ad campaign would be like or, more commonly, anti-Microsoft sentiment repeatedly raising its ugly head and any Microsoft advertising campaign would not please those people. I think the ads are generally quite strong - kooky, memorable, unique and a talking point... if not particularly funny (FWIW, I didn't find…
They're trying to change anti-Microsoft sentiment with these ads. If the ad does nothing for people who don't like Microsoft, than arguably, it is a total failure.