Microsoft discovers a new form for television commercials
This week, Microsoft Corp. debuted the first in a series of commercials designed to counter Apple companies successful “Mac versus PC” ads. The commercial featured Jerry Seinfeld and former Microsoft employee and CEO Bill Gates.
I rather liked the commercial. I thought it was amusing enough, in the tradition that Jerry Seinfeld had used in his television series of the 1990s. Once again, Seinfeld demonstrated his extraordinary generosity as a performer, playing straight man to Bill Gates’s comedian, and Gates was funny.
Other commenters in the tech world have disagreed. They don’t see the point of the air. They think that for $300 million Microsoft Corp. should have gotten a lot more for its money. And they wonder why the commercial didn’t mention Microsoft Vista or Microsoft Windows or indeed, any product that Microsoft has to sell.
They simply didn’t get it.
This commercial was not meant – was never meant – to stand on its own or to sell anything to anyone. All he needs to do, and all at once to do, is three things:
- Introduce a comedic world where Jerry Seinfeld meets and hooks up with Bill Gates.
- Amuse us so that we look forward to seeing more commercials in the series.
- Make us feel good about Bill Gates, and by extension, about Microsoft Corp.
The commercial, in other words, only serves as an introduction to the whole series.
I wonder if this is a new concept for television commercials. The Apple commercials don’t run in series – instead, I think we should consider them as episodes which we can watch in any order, and each one of which serves to get the point across that the Apple Computer is superior to any computer running Microsoft operating system.
The idea behind the Microsoft ads is a “long-form” television commercial. Just as the television mini-series introduced longform television content, so these commercials will tell a complete story (or at least get across its complete point) over the course of several commercials. I don’t know how many – maybe up to a dozen – or maybe the idea is to leave it open ended, so that they can make and run as many as as the public can stand.
What I’m wondering is what the Hell is Bill Gates doing in these television commercials? I mean, he doesn’t even work for Microsoft anymore. And being a clown in a TV commercial doesn’t exactly enhance his status as one of the largest public benefactors in the world. On the other hand, Gates has always been the public face of Microsoft. And Steve Ballmer certainly wouldn’t be so effective teamed up with Jerry Seinfeld!
I’m not, of course, defending the basic concept that the television commercial is a form of entertainment and not an advertisement. I’ve written about that before after all. My belief is simple: an advertisement should sell something; that is its one and only purpose. Any company that spends $300 million to create a series of advertisements, and then goes on to spend God only knows how many millions of dollars more just to entertain its audience and try to glean a little bit of goodwill, has wasted a hell of a lot of shareholder value.
As part of the audience, I liked the commercial. But if I owned any Microsoft stock I’d be mad as hell.
(Composed by dictation Saturday 6 September 2008.)
