Seen the latest commercial from Microsoft? The spot claims to have found an “artist” who wants to find the right computer for video editing. I don’t wanna spoil the ending for you, but she chooses a PC over a Mac. Microsoft wants us to all believe that, in the words of Irving Berlin, “Anything you (Mac) can do, I (Windows) can do better.” Only one teensy, tiny little problem. It’s all a lie.

In 1987, I was hired by Micrografx to become a part of the sales and marketing team. My first day at work was, coincidentally, the first day of COMDEX, where we showing off the soon-to-be-released Micrografx Designer 1.0. Quickly moving from Sales to Marketing, I assumed the reins of the Creative Services Group, the in-house ad agency for the company. My first task was to fix display ads that only a propellerhead could love, and brand the company and the Designer product. Our big competition at the time was Illustrator, for it (as well as Aldus FreeHand) were the big dogs of vector design. The conventional wisdom in the design world was, if you were gonna do any serious design work on a computer, you needed to buy a Mac – PCs need not apply. At the time, that was somewhere between a lie and and a gross exaggeration. In 1987, feature for feature, Designer on the PC was a better, more full-featured product than Illustrator on the PC. This was because Illustrator for the PC in it’s first release cost more than the Mac version and had fewer features (it could print in color, but it couldn’t display in color). I realized that, for vector design at least, you didn’t need to buy a Mac to get work done. I created a campaign that coined a word – MacEnvy. My campaign pointed out the superior features of Designer and positioned it as “the cure for MacEnvy.” The campaign was a huge success – in the late 80′s Micrografx blew Illustrator out of the water, with over 80% market share. Fast forward to 2009…

Micrografx is history – purchased by Corel. FreeHand was orphaned with Macromedia was acquired by Adobe. I’m not even sure that they make Designer any more. Illustrator on the PC is now every bit the application it is on the Mac. Most publishers write their apps for both Mac and PC, and keep feature set parity a priority. So which platform is better?

If you’re looking for “cheap” or “disposable” computers, the PC is the smart buy. But if you want to get a computer that is capable of, say, encoding video, editing video, or anything else that requires power, speed, and ease-of-use, you’d be an idiot to buy anything but a Mac. I say this with a good deal of authority, because I’m still stuck using a PC.

At one time, I had both a Mac (Quadra 950) and a PC on my desk. Every time a app update came out, I had to buy two upgrades – one for the Mac, one for the PC. My wife convinced me to choose one platform or the other, and ditch the loser. I chose PC, because the hardware was cheaper, and most of my clients ran PCs. Today, a high-end Mac costs about the same as a high-end PC, and my clients couldn’t care less what I use. What I care about, however, is being able to get work done. XP is clunky. Vista is a steaming pile of dung. Windows 7? Don’t get me started. Mac’s OS is easy to use, reliable, and doesn’t get in your way. Here’s a comparison: It’s a good day when I don’t have to reboot my PC more than once or twice. I’ve a video editor friend here in town. He has to reboot…um…well “seldom” would be accurate – say, once a month, on the average. It takes either my desktop or laptop PCs about 5 to 7 minutes to reboot from a system reset button. There are days that I have to reboot a dozen times – usually when I’m working on large files (i.e.: video clips). That’s not just inconvenient. That’s wrong.

So the bottom line is, even if a Mac was more expensive by a grand, you’d still be better off with it over a PC that will cost you time, money, and visits to your doctor to prescribe BP meds for hypertension. Microsoft may want to claim that they are the better choice, but unless you’re a Hermann Goebbels fan, let Microsoft peddle th Big Lie to someone that confuses “marketing” with “reality.”

Halftime/Second Half

The GOOD:

NBC: LMAO. Normally, network spots promoting their lineup of shows are pretty lame, or just embarrassing (like the NBC “I’m feelin’ allright” spot earlier). This one was funny, and somewhat reminiscent of the eTrade “Money Coming Out of His Wazoo” spot from the 2000 Super Bowl. Wouldn’t make me watch their shows – but a nice effort, nonetheless.

Monster: Moose Trophy. When the spot started, the first thing I thought of was that bit in the movie Arthur, where Dudley Moore looks at a Moose trophy on a wall and slurs the immortal line, “Thish mush be very embarashing for you.”  My second thought was “where’s the rest of him?” I was gratified to see this line of reasoning pay off. A good spot that made a point that will resonate with those that have to deal with the south end of the north-bound corporate animal daily.

CareerBuilder.com: It’s Time. Just when I thought that Monster.com wouldn’t have any competition in this year’s Bowl ads, along comes Career builder with an ad that started slow, and built to something that got me laughing. The repetition was brilliant. And just like a good jazz improviser, changing the rhythm of the spot at the appropriate time, then bringing it home again with a recapitulation of the leitmotif was brilliant.

Coke: Bugs. Coca-Cola redeemed themselves with a second effort (see below) that was clever and charming. I particularly liked the butterflies masquerading as a Coke bottle, and the beetle as bottle opener. Smart. Although I wonder if the bugs wouldn’t enjoy a Coke made with cane sugar more than the domestic stuff made with high-fructose corn syrup.

Coke Zero: Rip-Off. The Mean Joe Greene Coke spot from the 70′s is one of the most famous commercials ever. Given Coke’s spotty record as of late with their creative, I almost expected a direct rip-off under the banner of ‘homage’ (read: plaigiarism is the sincerest form of flattery). I was wrong. They put a pretty neat twist on this, even down to the trophy shirt at the end. Not too bad.

Cash4Gold: Has-Beens. I wouldn’t have expected to see a cash for old gold service produce a watchable spot, much less a good one. At first blush, I thought this was gonna be “All Ed McMahon, all the time,” which would have put it in the “you wasted money on THIS?” category. But no. The juxtaposition between McMahon and MC Hammer was good – the gold stuff they were willing to part with was better. Especially Ed’s gold throne at the end.

The BAD:

Nextel Direct: Roadies. I thought the first spot in this series (What if Overnight Delivery Guys Ran the World) was lame. This one is worse. Roadies running the world? What? We’re gonna have to “just say no to crack” for our leaders? No thanks.

Coke: Avatar. Coca-Cola used to do the absolute best spots for the Super Bowl. This wasn’t one of them. Looks like they’ve chosen to pander to the video game-obsessed Gen-X crowd. Pepsi owns that market. Bad move. And not an execution that recalls all the warm fuzzies of previous Coke spots.

Bridgestone: Space Buggy. Aside from the fact that I got burned by the Bridgestone-owned Firestone/Ford Explorer debacle back in the late 90′s and will never buy a Bridgestone product – EVER – this spot was pretty lame by ANY standard. The too-hip-for-the-galaxy space explorers get their ride’s tires jacked by some interplanetary gang bangers? What’s the message here…that if I’m stupid enough to buy Bridgestone tires, that the bad guys will steal them off my car? Pu-leaze.

GoDaddy.com: Enhanced. I’ve got no problem with doing something that employs a little double entendre, and sex, obviously, sells. Stupidity and obviousness is a real turn-off, however. This spot wasn’t clever. It wasn’t really sexy, except in a really obvious and crude way. And it did nothing to make me want to see the rest of it at GoDaddy.com.

The STUPID:

Toyota Tundra: Ramp. This is so stupid as to be Brain-Dead On Arrival. I don’t know what kind of idiot you’d have to be to make a buying decision based on a spot where a truck hauls a loaded trailer up a spiral ramp of death, but if you’re that stupid, you deserve a Toyota.

Miller: Beer Distributor. Um…guys…a 5 second (maybe) ad where some mook shouts “High Life!” doth not a Super Bowl ad make.

Pepsi: MacGruber. If you didn’t watch Saturday Night Live every now and then (a fate I try to avoid like shingles or hives) you wouldn’t “get” this spot at all, as it’s based on a recurring sketch on the NBC show. That’s fine, if you’re a Gen-Xer. If not, Pepsi just wasted mountains o’ moolah on a spot nobody else will appreciate. Even if you’re a boomer and spotted the Richard Dean Anderson cameo, you’d still be in the dark. Dumb.

AWOL or So Bad They Were Invisible:

FedEx, Michelob, Miller Lite, Mountain Dew, Dodge, AT&T, all the mortgage guys (no, duh!), Buy.com.

The Bottom Line:

THIS was worth $206,000,000? Nice work if you can get it, NBC. The delusional President of NBC Universal, Jeff “I wouldn’t know ‘quality’ if it bit me in the A’” Zucker said “These advertising milestones show the power of the NFL brand and the strength of the Super Bowl as a TV property in this economic climate.” Well…he’s HALF right. The NFL brand is powerful. NBC? Not so much.

All the Marbles.

As a service to those that TiVO pas the spots to watch the game (both of you), here’s my crack analysis of the Super Bowl spots – at least the ones that stood out for me, for whatever reason.

First Half

The GOOD:

Doritos: Crystal Ball. I laughed out loud at this one. You could see it coming, and it was still funny. I like funny. Memorable. People will be talking about this one tomorrow.

Doritos: Crunch. Another laugh-out-loud, funny spot. Gotta get me some of those chips. So far, Doritos looks like the clear winner in the Super Bowl spot contest.

Castrol: EdgeMonkeys.com. Funny spot. Not sure if it sells oil, but it’s got enough connection to the product to make me remember the brand. Which is a good thing.

Pepsi Max: I’m Good. Very funny spot, as long as you like slapstick, physical comedy. (I do.) It’s definitely a spot that will appeal to guys…and 10 year old girls. Wives…not so much. The concept of a “cola for men” is a bit iffy to me, but I’m willing to listen.

eTrade: Golf. Loved it. The idea of this baby playing golf, with his excess of ‘tude? Classic.

Budweiser: Clydesdale Fetch. Who doesn’t love the Clydesdales spots? They are always good. And the idea of a horse playing fetch to show up a dalmation is a funny concept. Well executed, this spot is a feel-good valentine to a (formerly) American institution.

Budweiser: Lost Love. Cute, but not the home run that the “fetch” spot was.

Star Trek. I can’t wait. And casting Zach Quinto as Spock is an inspired bit of casting. With J. J. Abrams at the helm, it looks promising. The spot got me interested. Good job.

Cars.com: Confidence. Not the best car spot I’ve ever seen, but they do a good job with their assertion that they can make buying a car easier for everybody – even some super-genius that is intimidated by the car-buying process. If only it were true.

Cheetos: Pigeons. You know those people that think they are better looking/richer/more worthy than you? One of ‘em gets what they deserve in this spot. The 3D rendering of the Cheetos Cheeta was pretty good, too.

The BAD:

Bridgestone: Mr. & Mrs. Potato Head. They teased this one leading up to the Super Bowl, and it looked as if it would be stupid.It ended up a pretty funny spot, taking advantage of the way the Potato Head toys work. However, I’m not sure what it really did to sell tires. Funny ad, though.

Pedigree: Get a Dog. Pedigree: Buy a clue. The concept of inappropriate pets wasn’t funny. It was lame.

eTrade: Buddies. Just goes to show that even a good creative agency can lay an egg. They should have just reran the first spot.

The STUPID:

Don’t be an Asterisk. Huh? What in the HELL was THAT supposed to be about? Don’t be an asterisk? I don’t get it. On the other hand, what that kid needs to get is a tube of pimple cream. Stat. After a little research, it turns out that www.dontbeanasterisk.com is a public service site pitching the idea that taking performance-enhancing drugs is a bad idea. Noble cause. Stupid commercial.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of COBRA. I had G.I.Joe’s when I was a kid. You know, back before many of us were ashamed to be Americans, before some of us were ambivalent of our military, and before corporations began cowtowing down to focus groups, special-interest groups, and radicals. I missed that entire era of G.I.Joe toys when they took the “American Action Heroes” out of our military, and turned them into some kind of comic book-inspired force that fights super-villians (who conveniently have no ethnicity, no religious afiliation, and no relevance to the real world). Apparently, this movie will focus on G.I.Joe 2.0. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll pass.

Gatorade: G. Stupid. I recognized a couple of the people in the ad. Most, I didn’t. Maybe that was the point. The three clowns in the masks were just creepy. Way too “inside Baseball” kind of vibe for my taste.

Monsters vs. Aliens/SoBe/Chuck in 3D. I would love to see things in 3D. Really I would. If only it didn’t require me to ware cheesy, pasteboard glasses with colored cellophane lenses. As it stands now, this technology BITES.

On the BUBBLE:

GoDaddy: Dannica’s Shower. What do you do when your ads are too racy to air on TV? Upload ‘em to your website. What do you do to get people to your website? Run half the spot on the air. Problem is, what they ran is the equivalent of commercialus interruptus – ultimately unsatisfying.

Wanna see for yourself? Go to www.hulu.com to check ‘em out for yourself.

The web (still) represents a Brave New World for marketing, where many of the traditional rules go out the window, while a host of new opportunities present themselves. For instance, in the pre-Web days, companies would never know they had a hit on their hands, excepting some kind of spike in sales. Today, all you have to do is to Google “glade lady” and you’ll see what looks like a disproportionately large number of articles, speculating on Dori’s background, the wisdom of ads that feature a spokesmodel who seems to be an inveterate liar and somewhat ashamed of their product, and why Glade isn’t using her image on their website, et cetera.

On that last point, I’m really curious as to why 1) SCJ hasn’t picked up on this trend – after all, they are renowned as a marketer’s marketing company, 2) why they aren’t using their P.R. chops to generate some grassroots interest in Kelly (who, presumably, would then push their products in the stories generated by her interviews), and 3) why Glade isn’t using her on the web, and perhaps trying to come up with ways to parlay interest in Kelly into interest in Glade products.

I’m not suggesting they do what the GEICO folks did with their Caveman property – that spin-off TV show was major lame – but certainly they could do something online that would boost their traffic and sales. Maybe webisodes, or longer-form spots, where they could give her character a backstory, and show how her foibles have gotten her friends to buy Glade.

As a marketer, I’m always concerned when I see somebody missing an opportunity, and this is no exception. So…I guess I’m going to have to call SCJ and do a little phone sleuthing to find out why they are ignoring what could be a marketing gold mine in regards to Ms. Kelly. Stay tuned…

Recently, I’ve seen a couple of spots that have been able to penetrate the general noise level and get my attention. They’ve done so, largely for a couple of reasons:

• They are well produced, directed, and acted.
• They feature some spokesmodels/actresses with talent well beyond their looks.
• They are part of a long-running series of commercials, so they have longer to make an impression.

The three series are:

• The Mercury spots, featuring actress/model Jill Wagner
• The Glade spots, featuring Dori Kelly
• The Progressive spots, featuring Stephanie Courtney as “Flo”

Did you ever wonder why Microsoft and marketing both start with “m” but just don’t go together? I’m just not quite certain if Microsoft has an aversion to marketing in the same way that, oh, say, Oprah has to Governor Palin. But if this latest excursion into television advertising is any indication, I’d say that “Microsoft” goes together with “marketing” like “Congress” goes with “bi-partisan cooperation.”

Let’s recap: On the one hand, you have Microsoft, probably The Most Successful Computer Company Ever.™ On the other hand, you have Apple, the Little Company That Could.

Microsoft is the Übergorilla in the room – the company that practically owns every facet of your computer. Think about it. Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Mouse. Microsoft Keyboard. Microsoft Office. You name it, and the Boys of Redmond are doing their level best to corner the market in any given segment. Their sheer size and market penetration of so many mission-critical markets make them the big dog on the block.

Apple is the smaller, smarter, more agile competitor. Their products work better. They are easier to use. They are more fun. And they offer a legitimate alternative to Microsoft in every market in which Microsoft plays.

You’d think with all that money (I’m surprised they haven’t cut a deal with Uncle Sam to co-own a Treasury Printing Office…think of the time we’d save on shipping if we could get Microsoft to print the money, instead of printing it elsewhere and shipping it all to Redmond), Microsoft could afford to hire some people that actually understand marketing. In fairness to Microsoft’s marketers, they probably have – but the Microsoft culture refuses to listen.

Apple is different. (No, duh.) They seem to approach everything from a marketing point of view, i.e., “here’s a problem…how can we solve it to make people happy?” Then they think, “how can we make our solution the best possible of all solutions, making it useful, friendly, easy-to-use, and…well…fun.” Microsoft approaches things from a view of “here’s a market that’s making money. Let’s dominate it. Doesn’t much matter if we do it better – we just want the money.”

So every so often, Microsoft inflicts television spots on us. Some of them have been memorable – usually for all the wrong reasons. When they announced Windows 98, they used the Rolling Stones “Start Me Up.” Evidently, nobody thought to listen to the lyric just after the snippet they used – the somewhat prescient, “You make a grown man cry.” Another Microsoft spot famously used Mozart’s Requiem to pitch their products. The Dies Irae section’s lyrics go a little something like this:

Day of wrath, day of anger
will dissolve the world in ashes,
as foretold by David and the Sibyl.
Great trembling there will be
when the Judge descends from heaven
to examine all things closely.

If only. So Microsoft has a well-documented history of shooting itself in the foot with their marketing. (Of course, you can argue that they do the same thing with their products, and you wouldn’t be far off the mark.)

Vista is an unmitigated disaster, an operating system that only a sadomasochist could love. We have it on two of the computers at my house and it is universally reviled with the same enthusiasm one has for excrement found adhering to the bottom of one’s shoe. To make matters worse, Apple’s agency devised a brilliant, long-running series of ads that poke fun at Microsoft in general, and Vista in particular. “I’m a Mac.” “And I’m a PC.” is nothing short of genius. In every ad, the theme is hammered home that Macs are easy to use, fun, and help you get work done. PCs are dull, boring, difficult to use, and are best relegated to folks like “Mordac, Preventer of Information Services.”

As if to rub it in, Apple made one brilliant move after another. iPod. iTunes. iPhone. “iSurrender” would have been a legit strategy for the Redmond crew, but nooooooooo – they decided to fight back the best way they know how. With a new ad. Starring Bill “Mr. Personality” Gates and Jerry “I’m bored and the money’s good” Seinfeld.

In Damage Control 101we learn that the best way to deal with a collosal P.R. problem is to face it head on. Vista’s problems are no big secret. In fact, everybody but Microsoft seems to know about it. A spot where the recently retired Gates says something like, “Hey everybody…Bill Gates here. Sorry about that Vista thing. We’ve heard you. We realize our new O/S is a big steaming pile, and we’re gonna do something about it. Please be patient, and we’ll fix it. And we’ll never violate your trust in us again.” Now THAT’S a spot I’d like to see. Believable? Maybe…maybe not. But it would stand a much better chance of resonating with the public than the piece of ego-driven dreck they’re airing now.

No mention of the Vista Problem. No admission of culpability or guilt. All they do is to talk about the future. (Just between you and me, I could care less about a computer that offers chewey, yummy goodness. I’d be satisfied if the damn thing worked once in a while.) No, they do a riff on Bill G.’s status as the World’s Richest Nerd, allow Jerry to do his schtick about how he can’t wait for the NEXT Microsoft innovation, and then…nothing. No payoff. No big announcement. No “sorry about that Vista crap – but now for something really worth waiting for!”

Microsoft seems to have forgotten that, in order to make the FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) work, you must first promise something more or less specific coming Really Soon Now. You can be vague about the details, but it helps to have something specific in your promise – especially if you’re trying to counter-sell against your competition. If they claimed, “Hey…forget about that OS/X stuff…we’ve got something that’s gonna blow it – and Vista – away!” You might not believe it, but (if you hadn’t heard it a thousand times before) you might at least let them sew the seeds of doubt in your mind. As it is, the spot is just…pointless. So what if they’re gonna do something cool in the future? We need solutions NOW. There’s nothing in that spot that convinces me to buy a Windows box – or to change my decision to buy Macs from now on. (Remember, until just recently, I’ve been a Window guy.)

Is there hope for Microsoft? I kind of doubt it. You see, inertia is the only thing they have in their favor. Bigger companies than Microsoft have imploded, flamed out or simply rotted from within before. Won’t be the first time. Google (a.k.a.: “The NEW Microsoft”) is busy pulling the rug out from under Microsoft’s kingdom. Google is doing a fine job of disintermediating Microsoft to the point where they’ll simply be irrelevant. Can marketing help Microsoft avoid that fate? In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not unless they actually deliver on the yummy goodness stuff, and stop shoveling things like Vista on to our plates and telling us it’s great.