According to Silicon Alley Insider's report, the much criticized Seinfeld ads for Microsoft have actually proven to generate more buzz than the "I'm a PC" ads that replaced them. Of course, page views are not an accurate message of brand impression. The true effectiveness of these ads, whatever their objective is, remains to be seen.
Regardless of some brand tracker's determination of effectiveness (suspect at best), it's still my contention that the Seinfeld ads were a better stab at brand advertising than the "I'm a PC" ads and mainly because they weren't really brand advertising. They were some sort of postmodern critique of brand advertising for a brand that doesn't need it.
Microsoft has nothing to say about Microsoft. Why should they? Over 85% of people in this country are using some form of a "PC." Everyone knows Microsoft. Any ground they're losing in the market is due to lack of innovation and generally shifts in the category over the past 10 years, that they have been poorly positioned and too lumbering to quickly mount a response.
Advertising can't help that, but it can do something else: nothing.
The Seinfeld ads for Microsoft are not advertising. They were a sitcom, a bizarro world "Seinfeld" where Kramer and George have
become Bill Gates, a parody of advertising and a funny one at that. Unlike the "I'm a PC" ads, which are dreadfully dull, The Seinfeld ads played at entertaining without brand communication. They weren't trying to change our thoughts about Microsoft. They weren't even saying anything about Microsoft. They were saying something about other people trying to manipulate us through advertising.
People are dumb and easily manipulated, but not dumb enough to hear someone say, "I use this product and I'm quirky" and then feel better about using the product. If anything, when drawn attention to that manipulation, they respond with scorn. The Seinfeld ads are drawing attention to that fact.
Why the universal scorn on the blogs? Perhaps the reason everyone online hated the ads was that everyone writing about them online are in some form of media or in the advertising industry. No one likes to be the butt of a joke.
Silicon Alley Insider
Regardless of some brand tracker's determination of effectiveness (suspect at best), it's still my contention that the Seinfeld ads were a better stab at brand advertising than the "I'm a PC" ads and mainly because they weren't really brand advertising. They were some sort of postmodern critique of brand advertising for a brand that doesn't need it.
Microsoft has nothing to say about Microsoft. Why should they? Over 85% of people in this country are using some form of a "PC." Everyone knows Microsoft. Any ground they're losing in the market is due to lack of innovation and generally shifts in the category over the past 10 years, that they have been poorly positioned and too lumbering to quickly mount a response.
Advertising can't help that, but it can do something else: nothing.
The Seinfeld ads for Microsoft are not advertising. They were a sitcom, a bizarro world "Seinfeld" where Kramer and George have
become Bill Gates, a parody of advertising and a funny one at that. Unlike the "I'm a PC" ads, which are dreadfully dull, The Seinfeld ads played at entertaining without brand communication. They weren't trying to change our thoughts about Microsoft. They weren't even saying anything about Microsoft. They were saying something about other people trying to manipulate us through advertising.
People are dumb and easily manipulated, but not dumb enough to hear someone say, "I use this product and I'm quirky" and then feel better about using the product. If anything, when drawn attention to that manipulation, they respond with scorn. The Seinfeld ads are drawing attention to that fact.
Why the universal scorn on the blogs? Perhaps the reason everyone online hated the ads was that everyone writing about them online are in some form of media or in the advertising industry. No one likes to be the butt of a joke.
Silicon Alley Insider
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment