I saw this morning that Microsoft is abandoning the use of Jerry Seinfeld in a multimillion-dollar campaign to boost the Microsoft brand. Wired reports that Microsoft is describing the departure of Seinfeld as a planned ‘phase two’ of the campaign. That’s only true if ‘phase two’ is code for scrapping a bad campaign that consumers didn’t like.
It’s silly to contend that this was a long-planned step, as much as it’s laughable to contend that home visits of public officials are just a search for ‘civil discourse.’
Microsoft would be better off admitting that the campaign was a mistake, as no one will take their description seriously.
There are two Whitewater connections in all this.
First, why is our school district so allergic to Apple products? We’re a Microsoft-centric district in a world shifting to more stable, creative, and productive Apple and open source solutions. Even in many companies formerly laden with Microsoft junk software, there’s a shift to Apple or open source.
I’ve contended before that in our schools, our students would benefit from the better alternatives available. Habit isn’t a best practice.
(A series of posts on public education, much delayed, is still in preparation.)
Second, it’s telling that with so much money to attract so much talent, Microsoft can’t devise a better campaign on behalf of its products. That’s true locally with the city administration’s all-good-news-all-the time outlook: the same limitations that bring poor policies or products may cloud the ability to understand the difference between good and mediocre campaigns or press releases.
Microsoft can insist repeatedly how skilled, important, and experienced they are, but the shift in campaign belies that proud view, of both the Microsoft campaign and the Microsoft brand.