All hail the mighty advertising!
Of all media outlets, I would expect Fast Company to get it. But alas, their latest issue features a cover story about ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky and its new client, Microsoft, with the headline, “Can this dude make Microsoft cool?” (referring to agency head Alex Bogusky). The article focuses on how one of the hottest ad agencies around will strive to save Microsoft with a new ad campaign launching this summer. To that I say, the best of luck. The problem, of course, is that advertising doesn’t make the brand; it’s the other way around.
The article gives exaggerated emphasis to the role of advertising in making a brand what it is. Early on, it talks about recent Microsoft stumbles:
“Over the past couple of years, Microsoft’s already problematic reputation in some circles – as the soulless, power-hungry purveyor of lackluster products – has suffered a series of self-inflicted wounds. It spent two years and $500 million on the media blitz around the long-delayed Windows Vista launch, only to see the January 2007 ‘Wow’ campaign, which likened Microsoft’s new operating system to Woodstock and the fall of the Berlin Wall, derided as arrogant and creatively void. Vista itself sold poorly, leading to price cuts of up to 40%.”
The article seems to imply that Vista failed because of poor advertising. In truth, Vista failed because it sucked. Royally. It was “long delayed.” It only added marginal functionality, but introduced numerous new problems and issues. It was unwieldy and costly. In the end, the pain of using it wasn’t worth the cost and benefit of the new software, and many corporate purchasers reverted to the older version of Windows rather than deal with its suckiness any more.
Later, the article gives props to the fantastic advertising from Apple, the “I’m a PC, I’m a Mac” spots which have become huge hits, winning many awards and something of a cult following. A media research analyst credits Apple with “single-handedly rebranding Microsoft as a kind of self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd that is out of touch with the normal lives and needs of its users.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Apple didn’t “single-handedly rebrand” Microsoft. Its brand already was that of a “self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd,” which has been out of touch with the market. It is a soulless, power-hungry purveyor of lackluster products. (You can tell which side of the fence I’m on, no?) Witness its failed attempts at Internet products; its poor history with Windows upgrades; its nearly utter lack of innovation in computing during the past 10 – 20 years. That isn’t a rebrand; that is the brand. The genius of the Mac ads isn’t that they reposition Microsoft, it’s that they clearly and creatively capture the truth of the matter.
It’s been a long-standing truism in marketing – the best advertising can’t save a crappy product. While we shouldn’t expect advertising to change the brand by itself, we hear this all the time in healthcare. A CEO we once served, who faced a service line with declining volumes caused by years of quality issues and poor physician relations, told the head of marketing: “We need to get the campaign rolling, we need to change our reputation.” Advertising can expand awareness, it can influence perception, it can define your differentiation, it can do a lot of things. But it can’t change who you are.