I called it one week ago. I knew Microsoft wouldn’t have the nards for cool; I just knew they’d cave – and I called it.

After the second Seinfeld Microsoft ad aired I predicted that stodgy Microsoft management would get apprehensive over the tentative buzz on the “bizarre” Seinfeld/Gates campaign and would prematurely cut and run. 

No guts. And that’s why they’re not cool. You see, this is the thing with how cool works. You do something different. You take risks. You put it out there. Then the flak comes. The flak is normal; it’s part of the process. It’s society’s way of testing if you’re for real, testing if you have the balls stick to your thing. Or if you cave to the pressure. Microsoft caved. And in the process, proved the exact opposite of what Crispin Porter + Bogusky were hired to do: to re-establish Microsoft’s control over its own public image. With its mac/PC series, Apple has been controlling Microsoft’s public image and now MS have allowed the bloggers to have some control. But this latest episode just reinforces that Microsoft is its own worst enemy. I said it on the 15th. I’ll quote myself: “The thing is though that if you’re Alex Bogusky, and you not only understand the concept of cool, but are in the business of inventing it for your clients when it’s not there, what do you do when your client insists on being uncool?”

And they are insisting. The Seinfeld thing was different. It was unusual. It was quirky. But it had guts and its own unique style. People were talking. And predictably, people didn’t get it, and so they throw it back at you. They’re going to take shots. That’s the idea. But to establish credibility as a self-assured entity that knows what it is doing and is comfortable with its own course of action, you have to stick it out and fight through flak because if you’re purposeful, you don’t back off. Instead Microsoft studied the polled reaction, they read the blogs, they got self-conscious, they probably had a bunch of emergency meetings with suits and charts and they retreated. 

Cool requires being unphased in the face of half-assed criticism. Cool requires continuing under adversity and challenge. Example: when you cross the room to talk to the hottest girl in the house and you lose the courage halfway and return to the comfort zone with your meat-head buddies on the sidelines, you prove that you don’t have it. Or if you did actually talk to her, but she gives you a bit of pushback, maybe a subtle insult or a question of your confidence, and you if you can’t keep up or can’t roll with the punches, then you don’t have it. What is “it”? “It” is Courage, strength, vision, a sense of self, knowing what you want and going for it. These are universally respected traits. They cause success. And you have to own it. 

So it’s not just the ads, it’s how you handle the PR. And how Microsoft has handled it couldn’t be further off the mark. Everybody now knows that Microsoft changed direction as a consequence of initial public reaction. Everybody knows that there was at least one more Seinfeld episode that Microsoft didn’t air, implying two brutal PR realities: i) Microsoft’s lack of faith in its own campaign and ii) that Microsoft is vulnerable to the opinions of bloggers. But leaders and innovators don’t act that way. Leaders and innovators don’t fret over their perception. Leaders and innovators don’t need to hire Zeta Interactive or YouGovPolimetrix to report back on blogger reaction. Because they own it already. They are in full control.  You don’t ask “Do you think she likes me?” because asking the question, “Do you think she likes me?” implies insecurity which will make her not like you. Leaders and innovators don’t decide to change horses on a campaign shortly out of the gate before its had a chance to settle into the public’s consciousness and instruct their ad agency to move on to the next stage. And leaders and innovators don’t allow internal self-consciousness to become public knowledge. I mean how PR retarded do you have to be here to not understand the degree of scrutiny you will be under when attempting something not only different, but something  highly anticipated: the come-back to Apple’s jabs. All eyes were on Microsoft. And they blew it. Not with the campaign, though admittedly, the Mojave Experiment was weak, but by pulling it early, and doing so publicly. Do you think you could yank the campaign and no one would notice? Do you think you could successfully conceal the existence of the third ad that’s not airing? Could you not anticipate the headlines that Microsoft fired Seinfeld? Do you think no one would figure out that your ad agency uses Macs and that you’re so insecure about it that you try to cover it up after the fact? All of these imply a weak sense of self. Exactly the opposite of the campaign’s intent. Smart.   

Bugusky must be shaking his head. You can’t teach cool. You just can’t. And you can’t help those people who don’t get it and insist on getting in their own way.

Previous article:      Hell, Yes! More cellphone shots of New York
Next article:     Twentieth