Microsoft has decided to drop the ads with Jerry Seinfeld. Personally, I think this is a big mistake - it looks like the company is messing up the biggest-spending campaign most people have heard of, and that's going to confirm many people's impressions that the company are just not getting it right these days. Yes, the adverts were a bit kooky, and Seth Godin may have a point that there is something a little bit fake about it all.
For more than twenty years, Microsoft has relentlessly commodified itself and the software it makes. It has worked to become a monopoly, a semi-faceless organization that cranks out very good (or pretty good) software that gets a job done for the middle of the market. It's been a profitable strategy. But now they have Apple envy.
But from my point of view, Microsoft had made a good start to a difficult but limited job. Basically, they needed to show the benefits of ubiquity and affordability, i.e. that they had brought computing and communication between computers to huge numbers of ordinary folk. At the same time they needed to defuse Apple's advertising message without giving Apple more ammunition. I thought they put across the message in a funny and oblique way, even if it was not hugely accessible. They just needed to move it a little further to show that they have done a pretty good job that no-one else could have done, and they will carry on doing a good job for ordinary folks.
Instead they decided to go head-to-head with Apple, which always looked like a no-no to me. It sends the wrong message: That Apple are setting the agenda and Microsoft doesn't like it. The new ad is trying to imply that Apple ads are disrespectful to the people that use Microsoft. But by doing so, they've put the ball in Apple's court and, on past evidence, I doubt Apple will waste their chance.
I can imagine the Apple guy in the guise of the therapist, for example. A user worries, "My friends think I bought my Mac to look cool, but I just wanted a computer I could use without having to call the helpline all the time". The response could remind them the user that "Apple just doesn't see why you have to do it all the hard way. That's why we introduced the desktop and mouse to personal computing all those years ago - which everyone else copied. Anyway, why shouldn't you enjoy looking at your computer? It's a great machine. It should look good." OK, I'm not an ad copywriter, but you get the idea. Apple can just tone down the cool, emphasize reliability and that they see the user as a friend. They've done it before, and it worked. Now's they've got the chance to do it all over again.
In a couple of pitches recently I had a problem getting prospects to really see what is meant by participation marketing. So, anticipating that this could be a common problem, I'm going to try in this post, and maybe afterwards I'll find it easier to explain!
When we talk about participation in an online conversation, some people feel they already do this by creating relationships with specialist journalists, sending news releases, and getting onto blogs published by mainstream news sites. But that is not the same thing at all. Participatory activities are fundamentally different. They're not a way of broadcasting your message, but of creating a presence. That demands a different mindset, in which dialogue has to be more spontaneous. Normally this is also a method that suits the longer term, not a substitute for news releases.
Participation requires a different idea of speed and scale, and this is where the benefit is hard to see at first, If relationships are initially with a few bloggers whose readership is orders of magnitude smaller than those of TechCrunch and Engadget, why should a limited "live presence" matter? The answer depends on how we see Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is not primarily about social networking - that's important for young people, but in some ways it has been over-hyped both because MySpace etc. are popular and because they showcase many Web 2.0 features. But the key for businesses is that browser and email are points of entry to lots of different applications and forms of communication (features that the Chrome browser in particular is pointed at). The attraction to business is functionality. In all kinds of businesses, people are spending an increasing amount of time, and engaging in an increasing range of activities.
As business activities move online, "live participation" become more valuable for three reasons.
1. Neutrality is highly valued
Vendor-neutral blogs are highly visible for search terms that are highly specific to them - and that does not just mean for Internet search, but for services like Google alerts, widely used to keep up to date with breaking news in all industry sectors. The well-known blogs are usually not talking about your subject and even when they are they will often approach it from a completely different point of view from yours. The "magic middle" blogs - with thousands rather than millions of readers - can be a powerful presence, because search engines give precedence to what they see as neutral content. Good posts on a new topic (together with comments sent to them) are likely to get referenced many times and stay high in search rankings for a long time, maybe years.
2. Conversation is a two-way process
Dialogue will really show you what works and what doesn't. Normally, when you talk to PR and advertising agencies, they take your message and convert it into a sales message. They may turn it this way and that first, but they are unlikely to really challenge your information. When you are in a conversation where no-one gets a financial benefit, sales messages don't work, and you have to be more objective and informative. As that kind of communication acquires added value, you will find out how to make it work for you online. How else are you going to do that?
3. Advocacy multiplies your efforts
When you develop relationships with people who are strongly interested in you, those people will often turn into advocates. If they like you and think you provide a genuinely useful service, they will be happy to help you promote it by providing links to your website and other offerings. That is particularly true if you can help them with insight or expertise. Relationships of this kind can then create advocacy. That advocacy is priceless because you are not directly promoting it, or paying for it, and neither is your PR company. But it depends on risking a degree of directness and openness.
One week on, and another ad from Microsoft, courtesy again of Bill and Jerry, and the long version weighs in at a whopping 4 minutes. I really wanted to see how I'd done with my predictions, and essentially, I think I wasn't too far off. Except that Microsoft was way ahead of me. I thought the odd couple would end up in a diner talking about the common man. In fact they ended up having dinner with the common family.
I think the new ad is both subtle and funny. They've come to stay with a "typical" family to get back in touch with what life is really like for average folks, with all its little moments of awkwardness and embarrassment, of which there are plenty. This episode wrong-footed all the pundits: Jerry, rather than being yesterday's comedian trying to be today's, something for which Microsoft was widely ridiculed, actually says, (more or less), "look at us Bill, you in your Moon House and me with so many cars I'm driving in my own traffic jam - we both need to get back in touch with everyday folks". Clever concept, clever casting.
From the comments I saw, the ad people got it, no problem, and commentators from the ITU world, such as Michael Arrington ("I remain confused"), just scratched their heads and wondered what Microsoft was thinking of. They're doing something funny, and bits of this one wouldn't be out of place (IMHO) in the Seinfeld creator Larry David's own cult series, Curb Your Enthusiasm - of which I am a big fan. In this one, Bill actually takes a real part in the comedy duo. First one, I thought he just got away with being geeky and saying almost nothing; this one I think you fall for his understated wry style.
I think a lot of IT people still hold the opinion that Microsoft is simply trying to rehabilitate Vista. As I said last week, it's a much bigger exercise than that, it's about the company. Getting more acceptance of Vista is more than a side-effect, but still essentially a bonus. The ads are making the admission that Microsoft is out of touch, but in a way that actually shows the opposite - i.e. "we have been out of touch, but we're not any more". Putting the founder in very humbling circumstances really takes the wind out of Apple's sails, too, because the success of those ads depends on Microsoft's perceived arrogance. This series - which will have a massive audience - may well succeed in creating sympathy for the Microsoft geek in the Apple adverts and making the cool apple guy look that little bit snobbish. In a way, the ad out-cools Apple in its post-modern sensibility, something few brands manage, including Apple and Steve Jobs (not that this seems to have hurt them so far). All in all, well done Microsoft.
A couple of weeks ago, Seth Godin did a nice blog post on why cartoons work, referring to Tom Fishburne’s book This One Time, at Brand Camp on the subject. Three days later, Google announced its Chrome browser using a cartoon strip - either a coincidence or a response even faster than the browser.
When you look at the Chrome comic strip content, it presents exactly what Google wants to say, but makes you read it, too. They don’t do a sort of phony FAQ-style “it’s interesting you say you’re always typing your search in the address bar – because that’s exactly what you can do with Chrome” dialogue. They just illustrate the product history, aims and benefits in real detail in a way that makes you want to read on. As cartoons go, it’s OK: you keep reading, but you wouldn’t buy it in the news-stand. As marketing, it’s brilliant - there is so much here that would take ages to say in prose, and the combination of white paper and user manual would be a horrible structure that few readers would struggle all the way through. To circumvent that problem, Google cleverly uses a tab and address bar structure.
I was impressed by the readability of Google's strip, as it switches seamlessly between visuals and prose and has characters point at features in the graphics and "speak" at the same time. Some of the stuff in there is pretty technical, but I was still happy to keep reading even where it went beyond my knowledge (e.g. the garbage collection page - I still got the point, i.e. no memory leaks and more efficient and faster garbage collection).
The number one advantage, as Seth Godin points out, is that we love dialogues, because folks are talking in front of us rather than at us. I agree. There’s something that reminds me in this of people-watching. It’s plain interesting (though I wouldn’t pay to do it). And I’m not alone. Go to any discussion forum and you will see the number of people reading it is always more than the number actually submitting. For marketers, the beauty of this is that you represent your customer benefit in a way that is interesting and appears authentic.
A word of warning, as always when a medium catches on. You need to do it well, and subtly, otherwise it will be either too “me-too”, funny in the wrong way, or plain cheesy (if plain cheesy isn’t self-contradictory). Just show it to your friends first, and tell them they have to be cruel to be kind sometimes.
The many reactions to the new Microsoft ad with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld are mostly pretty negative. Some also remark on the other hand that the number of reactions is itself a good thing, especially as a series starts. The fact that the whole campaign is to cost $300 milllion is pretty much guaranteed to make everyone talk, anyway, so maybe that strategy pays for itself!
Add the fact that it is for Microsoft, one of the biggest brand challenges there is, and it's interesting to speculate where the campaign will go. At least for PR companies like us it's a useful exercise, too. David Webster, general manager of brand and marketing strategy at Microsoft, outlines the plan:
"Windows is a product that's been around for a long time," said David Webster. "It's well-known and part of people's everyday lives. What people don't know is that Windows has kept pace with the changes in people's lives today. We thought it was a good time to catch people up with what windows was doing."
But that last sentence hides a mammoth task -- defusing the hostility surrounding MS, establishing some degree of warmth and trust so they will listen, and then presenting the benefits. I don't believe what commentators say about this being primarily an attempt to rehabilitate Vista, but about rebuilding the brand. Sure, revenues and users are being lost. But the bigger problem is loss of confidence in MS, and though helping Vista's image will restore confidence, it is not enough, and it is too risky to put it all on one product, no matter how central.
So, taking the hint from Webster, I predict the campaign will point out the positives from the company history and culture, showing how they've helped users, getting "a PC in every home" and taking some of the sting out of the bad publicity of Vista. Then they'll turn to the vision. And even though Webster says they won't go head-to-head with Apple -- which Apple would love -- they will be consciously trying to undermine their message of "cool guy vs. clueless control freak", while denying Apple any obvious ammunition. I think the first ad points to how they'll do that already -- showing how ordinary they are. They'll pitch Apple, by implication, as the computer for the elitist, while the PC, enabled by Microsoft, was the affordable, beige, "computer for the rest of us", that just got on with the job without trying to be creative or win prizes. Perfect for doing the everyday stuff like writing letters and doing the tax returns. The point gained, that's when we'll hear just how much Microsoft has done, is doing, will do for the ordinary guy.
So far it goes - Jerry Seinfeld, the star of a witty sitcom that is purely observational, inconsequential comedy, walks past the Circus Shoe store, spots Bill Gates trying on discount shoes, walks in, and the two have an inconsequential conversation. At one point, Bill Gates shows Jerry his Circus Shoes Clown card. "Platinum", he says, at the same time coy and proud. It's a sight gag, which no-one seems to have really picked on. Gates is a clown. He's awkward, he's nerdy. And he's a genius. You can't help having some sympathy. "Bill's just like the rest of us. Give the guy, and his company, a chance. They're trying."
Future episodes: Bill and Jerry get talking
Jerry gets really interested, and keeps the conversation going with lots of quirky, non-threatening remarks.
Predicted storyline: They'll go to a cafe. Maybe a funfair or circus, where Bill's Platinum Member Circus Shoes Clown card will come in handy. At some point Jerry will see the HQ and get the history. And meet lots of other Microsoft folks (Bill is not going to keep the audience engaged through a whole series). Jerry will then get a privileged look into "Bill's World" - not the luxury version of one of the world's wealthiest men, but the geek version with the future vision. He'll see how in the past, that vision meant offering great value and bringing computing to regular folks, enabling the "PC in every home" and the Internet revolution. And then Jerry'll see all the stuff you can already do with Microsoft (Vista and Silverlight will be key), but don't know it. Jerry will be like a kid in a toy factory, and will ask funny questions that give Bill a chance to correct misunderstandings about Microsoft. Then there'll be the vision of the future.
Final episode: Weird, funny, unforgettable
The last episode will be completely tangential to the rest and is there to create buzz, memorability and maybe even a catchphrase.
My predicted messages:
"Bill Gates and Microsoft, they're kind of out of fashion. But remember, they've done a lot for us. And they'll do a lot more for us in the future."
"A lot of people hate MS because it's the biggest and most successful computer company of all time. But that hurts our feelings - we only got to be the biggest by making the most popular software of all time. We can't help it if people want to buy our stuff!"
"Microsoft loves the fact that there are so many new Internet companies doing browsers and email and search and who knows what else. We invented a lot of that stuff - and we're going to invent a whole lot more. But of course we're more than an Internet company."
"So Vista has been misunderstood, and hasn't worked with all your old stuff first time. But it's new, and takes some getting used to. There are lots of great things it can do, and it will run great on the new PC you're thinking of buying." Some of the Mojave stuff may sneak in here, but not enough to give Apple ammunition.
"Anyway, there's a lot more to Microsoft than Vista. Ever heard of Microsoft Word? How many people do you know that use anything else? Even on the Mac you used in your show. And look at all the other stuff we've given you over the years."
"Just look at what you can do on XBox3! Look what Silverlight can do for you! And Windows Mobile!! (And, and...)" At some point Jerry will have to get Bill or whoever it is to calm down so the enthusiasm doesn't endanger their health.
"We've done so much, but there's so much more for us to do. So many cool things that no-one else is going to do for you. We thought of it all because we're nerdy. And if you find that funny, we're cool with you laughing at us. "
Will it work?
This could be perfect timing - Vista has made a humbler more human Microsoft appear credible, and Google has shown that real competition exists. Given the budget, I actually think this could work. The acid test for me will be whether Apple's ads, which must get under Microsoft's skin like nothing else, are made to appear snobbish and spiteful rather than witty and creative. That would really be a success. Despite being mostly a Mac user, I wish the campaign well.
A number of articles -- notably this one from Don Reisinger of Arstechnica -- have recently suggested that Apple could gain significant OS market share by licensing to third-party suppliers. That idea probably gives Steve Jobs nightmares. Here are 5 reasons why Apple should not do it.
Reason 1. Apple is a successful hardware company. Yes, it is also a software company, and its users do go on about its ease-of-use and cleverness. But most of Apple's hardcore customer base is as much in love with the look and feel of the product as the software on it. And this is where their profit base lies.
Reason 2. Apple is not a strong enough software company to compete with everyone. The software world is hugely competitive, with the really big players, Microsoft, Google, and to some extent Adobe, locked in battle. Mac's only potential killer app is the OS, which may be threatened in the foreseeable future by a combination of e.g. Ubuntu and Chrome (see Reason 5). Competing with everybody – Adobe (Flash, Macromedia etc.), Google (iGoogle, Google Apps, Chrome, Android etc.), Sun (OpenOffice etc.), Mozilla (Firefox etc.), not to mention MS itself, is not a viable option. Partnership is the word.
Reason 3. Apple can't beat Microsoft. The reason Microsoft can maintain sufficient stamina on all these fronts (Office, IE, SQLServer, .net, Silverlight...) is vast revenues from licensing for consumer and business OSs. Not only is Windows on the majority of PCs shipped, but the Office suite, too. That also gives Microsoft a lot of leverage in the market, and a lot of power over distributors and partners. When Michael Dell said he was keen on getting the Mac OS on Dell PCs, was he thinking about really big increases in sales, or just enough to pressurize Microsoft into a better deal? He is not, after all, known as a friend to Apple.
Reason 4. Been there, done that, nearly went out of business.Apple tried it in the mid-90's with Power Computing, Motorola and others. Where Microsoft has cash, Mac has huge brand loyalty, and that it what kept the company afloat. Buying a cloned Mac looked like getting a second-rate product, and in a way that was true (not always, though -- some of the Macs of the time were fairly poor). Certainly, Mac users are likely to think of a Mac clone as second rate, which will put pressure on the price -- and users who are bargain-hunting are not likely to appreciate the Mac's smaller and more expensive range of available software. But the big danger is that it dilutes the brand.
Reason 5. Apple can play the same niche in different market segments. Apple customers are consciously buying a premium product with a cool design. Long-term, Android could power a far larger market share than iPhone apps. And a stylish, user-friendly laptop running Ubuntu -- perhaps with Chrome offering great ease of use and finally delivering the promise of Google Apps -- could significantly affect sales of MacBooks. But the niche, and the hard core of Mac fans will remain, because of the styling, the "vision", and the sense of exclusivity. If anything it is probably better to think of Mac as an electronic communication and lifestyle company, as clearly implied in the "Your Life, To Go” tag. Getting embroiled in software wars detracts from this message.
Perhaps the best way to summarize the argument is to say that Apple's whole strategy has been built around being the "better alternative". They have almost written the book on how to be a successful number two in the marketplace -- take a developing market, work in stealth to provide features that the other manufacturers aren’t quite delivering, go in high with undeniably cool products and then build market share. As long as networkable consumer products exist, Apple should be able to find these niches. But not as a software company.
