Nathaniel Salzman

With the plug pulled on the first two Bill Gates / Jerry Seinfeld ads, a new “Life without walls” campaign launched last week. The ad starts with a John Hodgman look-alike and plays off of Apple’s brilliant “Hello, I’m a Mac. And I’m a PC” campaign. The dejected man greets viewers saying, “Hello, I’m a PC and I’ve been made into a stereotype.” The ad then cuts to people of varying backgrounds and activities embracing the “I’m a PC” label.

This ad is well executed, but it’s the strategy that I think is a $300 million mistake. More on why after the jump.

I have on my desk the June 2008 issue of Fast Company. On the cover, a seated Alex Bogusky, the now front man and former creative brain child behind the award-winning Crispen Porter + Bogusky ad agency. The headline: “Can this dude make microsoft cool?” CP+B made their epic splash in the ad world leveraging innovative tactics and generally untouchable creative concepts. Starting with the TRUTH anti-smoking campaign and the USA launch of the iconic British MINI Cooper, CP+B has gone on to reinvent Burger King, reinvigorate VW, and inject a much-needed dose of cool into many other troubled brands. They’re extremely good at generating buzz and if your brand needs a high-profile shot in the arm, then they’re definitely on your short list. In advertising circles, simply hiring CP+B is publicity unto itself. These self-described mercenaries will happily take your money and leverage their creative to move your brand. They even resigned MINI in order to work the VW account, which greatly multiplied their revenue. 

But back to that question, can this “dude” make Microsoft cool? If the tool is advertising, I say no. You can’t make anything “cool” simply by how you talk about it. It either is or it isn’t. You can, however, point out how cool something actualy is in a cool way. The cliché in the ad world goes “you can’t polish a turd.” People don’t usually buy crappy products just because they’re perceived as cool. At least not for very long. Furthermore, according to FC, Bogusky has passed the creative reigns to talented subordinates and is now playing the role of public agency front man. Regardless, a lack of creative isn’t really the issue in Microsoft’s branding conundrum as I see it. “How do we present ourselves as cool?” is the wrong question. Just what exactly is that conundrum? If Microsoft has desperate problems, which is itself arguable, then what problems they do have aren’t going to go away because they spent ad dollars. I break it down like this.

Problems Microsoft really doesn’t have:

• Revenue: Sure, the Zune isn’t flying off the shelves, but their balance sheet is hardly hurting.
• Market share: Windows is somewhere between 80-90%, Xbox is doing very well, Comcast is everywhere, included in my house.
• Worldwide ubiquity: Though Apple is making progress here in America, Windows has the rest of the world pretty much locked up.
• Direct competition (at least in OS): Apple’s OSX and Linux are the only other major OS players and not yet major market threats, especially in the global market.
• Diversification: Between Windows, Office, Xbox, and Comcast, they’re playing in a lot of sandboxes.

Problems Microsoft really does have:

• A terrible product and user experience: Their products are the Achilles Heel Apple is shooting arrows through left and right
• Convoluted systems: The user must constantly adapt and relearn, rather than having a system built and adapted to them and what they’re trying to do.
• Epic development calendar: Apple releases a new feature-rich upgrade every 18 months or so. Vista took half a decade just to rip off features of a then three-year-old version of Mac OSX and fail miserably in the market.
• Corporate inertia: When was the last time Microsoft did something truly new?
• “Me too” innovation: Why create mediocre competitors against established market giants (Zune vs. iPod, Silverlight vs. Flash)?
• Faceless public perception: When you make what you do into a commodity (and an arguably lousy one) and don’t spend any real focus on user experience or product personality, then what do you expect?

Of the problems Microsoft actually has, their public perception is the only one where advertising could do them a lick of good. But even then, that’s only if they truly have something to offer. “Cool” really isn’t the issue. Even this latest marketing approach is “me too.” Their message isn’t “Here’s where we lead, here’s what we do really well, and here’s what we offer that’s truly unique.” Instead, it’s “Hey, we’re cool too! No really. We’re awesome. Totally. Eva Longoria says so. Jerry Seinfeld says so. We’re totally hip and cool people use our stuff.” I really don’t think that anyone will be convinced until the core issues around why people don’t like Microsoft (crappy products; passionless, faceless corporate culture) are addressed. It’s not a lack of cool that makes me hate Windows. It’s a lack of features, security vulnerabilities, very little useful bundled software, a lack of stability, and a lousy user experience. And it’s there that Microsoft, having retained CP+B, is missing out on its greatest opportunity. Rather than spending $300M on “we’re cool too, dammit” marketing, let them help you fix your product.

Advertising creatives have three key insights that could actually get to the core of Microsoft’s biggest problem: their product. First, they understand people. Second, they understand communication. Traditionally, these are not the strongest skills of software developers. Third, and most importantly, they offer fresh perspective. Why not task a group of creatives to find new ways for your software to work? Tap their understanding of your key audience groups to help optimize your software experience and inject much-needed personality. Fix a big part of what’s obnoxious about Windows and the marketing writes itself. Then, stop trying to be all things to all people. Focus on creating fantastic, purpose-built business solutions. Scarcity helps build value. Perhaps partner closely with a handful of hardware manufacturers to produce PCs with hardware optimized to run your OS as stably as possible. Lead with your truly big innovations (the “coffee table PC” comes to mind). Create reasons for me to find you interesting, then use advertising to tell me about it. Until then, spending a lot of money trying to fool me into thinking that you’re cool by association with the people you’ve paid to be in your commercials isn’t going to make me love my Mac any less. 

Instead, Microsoft is going to pay CP+B a fantastic sum of money to create buzz, but without addressing why people despise their products in the first place. Take a second look at the Apple campaign. The “PC” character does 90% of the talking - he’s truly the hero of the ads. We like him. But more fundamentally, what he consistently points out is the alternative of Apple and how we have a truly viable alternative to all the things about Windows that drive us crazy. This “Life without walls” campaign is so far completely devoid of the basic marketing components of a real ad. What’s the story? What’s the unique selling proposition? Why should I choose you over Apple? What do you offer that I can’t find somewhere else? Even the tag is uninspired. “Life without walls” sounds like it’s peddling public Wi-Fi. In my mind, no walls means no need for windows. 

For now, the game hasn’t changed. Microsoft is still the evil Galactic Empire. Steve Jobs is still Han Solo. The public will continue to pull for the little guy. 

Check out Seth Godin’s blog post What Advertising Can’t Fix about this very subject. He read my mind, and I read his blog. I especially appreciate his tribe perspectives.

Advertising, Design, Tech, Television commercial, life without walls, microsoft, windows