Brand: CarMax
Execution: TV
Target: Used car buyers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A Clint Eastwood-voiced cowboy rides into a corral in a dusty Western town, saying “I need another horse,” to the man who greets him. The horse salesman says, “You ever been to a HorseMax?” “Nope,” says the cowboy. “Come on, I’ll show you around.” Then the salesman explains the HorseMax policy, “see, at HorseMax we’ll buy your horse whether you buy one of ours or not,” he says as they pass a ringing cash register. “… even if she ain’t in good shape,” he adds as the men see a horse with a brace of arrows planted in it (the ASPCA disclaimer about the horses not having been harmed flashes at the bottom of the screen at this point). “See that filly there?” the salesman asks, “We’d never sell you that horse.” The horse the salesman is pointing to is obviously a horse costume with two people inside. “You know why?” he asks and as we see the man at the head take off the horse mask and shake his head, he answers the question himself, “It ain’t right on the inside.” “We even got a money back guarantee,” the salesman concludes. At this moment the spot shifts scenes seamlessly to the modern day as two similar men walk conspicuously in front of a CarMax. “Oh,” the man who is the customer says, “It’s amazing no one’s thought of this before.” The spot cuts to a car max logo with the tagline, “The way buying should be.” [emphasis from spot copy].

What Works:
We like this spot because it carefully lays out the brand positioning (’a better buying experience’) while maintaining visual and story interest. The western set adds entertainment and intrigue to the spot but doesn’t distract from the message. Indeed, the obvious perils of trading in a used horse underlines the unsatisfactory state of the used car buying experience in the prospective buyer’s mind. This is a good example of a spot which is able to work in a number of relevant copy points without feeling too slow or looking like too much of a sale pitch.

What Doesn’t:
CarMax doesn’t actually make its appearance to the end of this spot, which could make brand recognition harder although we believe most consumers will think of CarMax when the HorseMax name is first spoken. The pacing of this commercial is good, but not exceptionally brisk.

Branding Bottom Line:
CarMax would really have something if they could line-extend to SpouseMax, ChildMax and In-Law-Max.

Issue: Taco Bell’s insufficient response to rat video compounds earlier e-coli woes
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

Taco Bell owner Yum Brands this week has found itself on the wrong end of another public health crisis, this one stemming from a video filmed at the Greenwich Village Taco Bell/KFC showing a swarm of rats scurrying around the restaurant. Kate MacArthur at AdAge reports:

No crisis is just a local crisis. The rats running amok at the Greenwich Village eatery were first reported on early-morning TV news by a New York station, WNBC-TV, following a consumer call to its tip line. But by the time Yum Brands put out a statement addressing the issue on its home page and media wires — 2:06 p.m. EST — the stomach-churning video had already raced over the internet and made it to numerous other TV stations.

Taco Bell & Yum’s response to this crisis highlights the problem we have previously addressed with modern crisis management plans: they don’t account for the speed of the Internet and the visceral impact of viral video. The seven hours that passed between the early-morning airing of the video on WNBC and WCBS and Taco Bell’s response allowed the story to run nationally without any expression of regret from the company and made the whole mess look worse.

The response itself was not much more helpful, crafted as it was to stress the isolated nature of the incident and the safety of Taco Bell and KFC cooking in general.

Now, Yum will face further dropoff in Taco Bell business (already down since the e-coli crisis) and continued erosion of the brand. Why? Because Yum has not demonstrated that it really passionately cares about consumers or safety. Showing passion in the response means going beyond dealing with the immediate health issue caused by e-coli or rats and addressing the breach of trust created by this type of adverse event. Taco Bell should have made a more heartfelt statement of distress and then thought carefully about compensation for consumers - what about making the restaurant free for a weekend after reopening?

Just to be absolutely clear, this is our four-step primer for dealing with crises - rodent or otherwise:

To respond effectively to a crisis, brands need to have a plan which can be implemented in a matter of hours. It should include the following steps:

1. Accept Responsibility - Even if events subsequently prove that the brand was blameless in an outbreak or tainting scandal (think of the finger found in a Wendy’s salad which was planted by a customer, for instance), stonewalling will hurt the brand. It is far easier to act as if it is a problem you’ve created and take responsibility for making it right. If later events prove the brand was blameless, its ethical reaction to the problem will increase brand loyalty. If it was the company’s fault then the brand will retain consumers with its forthright, straighforward acceptance of responsibility.
2. Protect the Consumer - Closing restaurants or recalling the product early can limit the damage done to the brand. Stubborn refusal to immediately recall their contact lense solution almost cost Bausch & Lomb its entire ReNu franchise.
3. Find the Truth - Getting to the bottom of the problem is critical, even if it is not always possible.
4. Prevent a Replay - Tylenol returned to the market not when the person who had adulterated the product was apprehended but when Johnson & Johnson could be sure that another person could not do the same thing. This is the best standard for knowing whether its time to step back into the water, and one that Taco Bell has likely failed.

To these we would add “Make Reparations.” Taco Bell needs to clean up and think of a creative way to erase the horror from the minds of its consumers.

Issue: Proposed Sirius/XM Satellite Merger
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s comment last week that the proposed $13 billion dollar “merger of equals” between Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio faces “high hurdles” is a disturbing sign that the U.S. government is out of touch with consumers, technology and brand competition.

The primary question the government must answer in any proposed mergers is - will this merger ultimately benefit or harm consumers? Will this create a monopoly or enable more competition? A decade ago, when satellite radio was first licensed, it seemed that satellite radio would be the dominant audio broadcast technology in the near future. Consumers would eventually migrate to satellite radio, shunning traditional radio. Particularly in cars, satellite radio would become the primary entertainment option.

Under these circumstances, it made sense that there should be at least two satellite competitors and that these competitors would not be allowed to merge. Circumstances have changed.

Today’s consumer has a myriad of choices for in-car entertainment and in-home entertainment. In fact, the biggest alternative to traditional radio has come from an unexpected source - Apple Computer. The iPod’s popularity has even forced automobile makers to scamble to accomodate iPod connection to the car radio, after decades when car makers refused to put even a simple external input jack on car stereos.

There is also renewed competition from terrestrial radio in the form of digital radio, which promises similar quality to satellite radio.

Finally, the FCC could not have foreseen that the fierce competition between Sirius and XM in the face of many other consumer entertainment options would leave both companies weak and unprofitable. The bidding war for talent that culminated in the Sirius acquisition of Howard Stern (for a reported $500 million) and NFL rebroadcast rights and XM lockup of Major League Baseball.

The resulting situation is not good for consumers. Sports fans must choose between baseball and football, or the near-impossibility of having two incompatible satellite radio systems in a single vehicle or household. Entertainment fans must side with Oprah (XM) or Howard Stern - not that we suspect they have many fans in common.

If all this seems obvious to the average reader of this advertising blog, it is disturbingly not obvious to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. Like airline CEOs who never travel in coach or food company chiefs who never eat their own products, we wonder if Martin has spent much time driving himself through rush-hour traffic in the past few years. Does he not see the legions of people fumbling with their iPods in the car (let alone the man we recently spotted eating a bowl of cereal with milk in his Lexus)?

The best thing for consumers, and for brands, would be to allow two weak companies to form one stronger one. Instead of fighting each other they can prepare themselves for the larger challenge of competing against digital radio and MP3 players. They can also spend more time developing their content.

If not, we’ll just sit back and watch the FCC force another VHS/Betamax battle on innocent consumers.

Issue: JetBlue Strands Thousands, Creates Customer Bill of Rights
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

Watching the media this week, one might think JetBlue is going the way of most of the legacy carriers - becoming a haven for bad customer service and employee discontent. This advertising blog believes that the disaster for JetBlue may instead save the company. Here’s why:

Last week was by all accounts the worst week in the seven year history of JetBlue. The company which has long been a media and Wall Street favorite dismayed consumers, investors and management last week. Jetblue stranded thousands of flyers in a cascading series of flight cancellations apparently caused by poor management decisions around an ice storm in New York on Valentine’s Day. The worst complaints against the airline from disgruntled customers centered around planes that were kept on the runway for up to 11 hours with overflowing toilets and without food as well as swamped customer lines and an apparent lack of a system to reschedule thousands of flight crews during a major weather event.

JetBlue CEO David Neeleman who has been in the media spotlight all week today detailed a new “Customer Bill of Rights” which he believes will move JetBlue to the front of the industry in crisis management and consumer responsiveness. The JetBlue Customer Bill of Rights includes the following:

1. Notifications - JetBlue promises to give customers prior information when it learns of delays, cancellations or diversions and their true causes.
2. Cancellations - If JetBlue cancels a flight more than 12 hours in advance, customers can opt for a full refund instead of rebooking. If JetBlue cancels within 12 hours, customers get a roundtrip voucher as well as rebooking.
3. Departure Delay Compensation - (For “controllable irregularities”) JetBlue will give customers $25 vouchers for 1-2 hour departure delays, $50 vouchers for 2-4 hour delays, 1-way flight travel vouchers for 4-6 hour delays and roundtrip flight vouchers (for the amount paid for the delayed trip) for delays of six or more hours.
4. Denied Boarding Compensation - JetBlue will pay customers $1,000 for denied boarding
5. Ground Delay Compensation - JetBlue will give customers who experience an arrival ground delay compensation identical to the #3 above. JetBlue will give customer who experience an uncontrollable (i.e. weather or air traffic) departure delay $100 for 3-4 hour delays and roundtrip travel vouchers for longer delays.

This ‘Bill of Rights’ is a huge step forward in an industry which seems intent on doing the minimum for the consumer at all times. Firstly, it treats the customers time as something of value - a concept no other airline currently embraces. Secondly it seeks to set up a direct value trade for unexpected wastes of the customers time. Third, it addresses the awful industry practice of overbooking in a way that is certain to satisfy customers and deter over-ambitious airline revenue management programmers. Finally, it shows that JetBlue is taking responsibility for the mess it made last week and owning up to some of the bigger flaws not just in its sub-industry-grade performance last week but in the state of the industry at large.

This is a blessing at a time when JetBlue needed one. It may be exaggeration to say the bloom was off the rose at JetBlue, but increasing departure delays, soaring fairs and more consumer complaints last year opened the question of whether JetBlue could stay special as it became a large, mainstream carrier. Just as with the frog who will sit in a pot of water as it is slowly raised to a boil, JetBlue seemed indifferent to these individual issues because it could not perceive the entirety of the effect on the consumer experience viewed from the outside.

The New York ice storm and the weaknesses it revealed in the command and control systems at JetBlue as well as training gaps were akin to dipping the frog in boiling water from the outset - JetBlue now seems intent on jumping out of the pot.

To be sure, the performance has not been perfect. JetBlue CEO David Neeleman seems harried and unfocused in his video message to consumers. Some of his media performances were good but in others he seemed defensive and vague, as in his call-in session on NPR. CEO’s ought to be taught that every good media appearance during a crisis begins with a specific act of contrition - you need to state exactly what your company did wrong and what the effect was on consumers. This shows that the company is taking responsibility and that the CEO has empathy for the consumer. Then the CEO must explain what mistakes the company made beyond weather and uncontrollable events and detail a plan of action. Only then can the CEO get into the nitty gritty of arguing over whether the government should step in with regulatory action or what compensation consumers should receive.

On the whole, though, we think JetBlue has taken an important step forward. Other media darlings should examine themselves in the cold light of day to see if they are still fulfilling the brand promise. If they don’t, a JetBlue disaster may be their worst nightmare - and their only chance for redemption.

Brand: Doritos (Frito-Lay/PepsiCo)
Execution: TV (Live the Flavor, Checkout Girl) Super Bowl
Target: Young Snackers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
The winner and runner-up  of a submit-your-own-ad contest by Doritos, both of which aired on the Super Bowl.  The first spot, “Live The Flavor” by Dale Backus and Wes Phillips has a driving, Doritos-munching guy starstruck by a woman who is also eating a big bag of Doritos.  With an Aria from ‘La Traviata’ playing in the background, the man and woman make eye contact, causing the man to wreck his car and the woman to fall on her face.  The words “Spicy, Cheesy, Crunchy, Bold and Smooth” are interjected to descibe the both the Doritos and the action.

The second spot, “Checkout Girl” by Kristen Dehnert has a man purchasing groceries at a supermarket. As she scans a bag of Doritos she says, “I like these - nacho cheese - old school.”  After scanning the next bag she says, “Fiery Habanero - YEAH - those are HOT!” becoming much more animated.  Then “Oh - Salsa Verrrrrde,” and she purs at the guy who purs back.  “Blazin’ Buffalo and Ranch?  Giddy-up!” Then we see a bag of Doritos exploding against a black background and the www.snackstrong.com URL.  The spot ends with the woman, hair disheveled rising up to her intercom mike and saying, “I’m going to need a cleanup on register 6.

What Works:
Bob Garfield’s negative take on these spots aside, these spots are remarkable for both strategy and execution.  Both are on-strategy for the Doritos brand whose brand character is bold and unconventional and whose brand strategy is to be an enabler of social connections.  Both are also extremely well produced, with good pacing, engaging storylines and good visuals.

What is extraordinary about these spots is that they were both produced by amateurs rather than advertising agencies.  While marketers can argue whether these spots were the most effective of the Super Bowl, nobody will argue that they certainly were not the worst spots of the Super Bowl (this advertising blog would put them in the top 10) - and that in itself is remarkable.  This Super Bowl represents a distinct step forward for consumer-generated media where the best consumer efforts are very hard to distinguish from professional efforts.

Consumer-generated media is a tricky proposition and we would not advise brands to begin handing the keys to the media plan over to consumer wily-nily.  And we also can see that the creeping professionalism of the consumer-generated spots can make these more like visual resumes for aspiring filmmakers than spontaneous engagement from he brand faithful.  But they have several advantages over traditional agency advertising.  They are less expensive to produce, they follow creative lines that agencies would often not venture down and they have ancillary benefits like PR exposure and a sweepstakes effect.

What Doesn’t:
Viewed purely as professional advertising, both of these spots would be good but not great.  It seems possible that people outside the advertising community could create effective ads that are vastly different from traditional advertising - the same way a blog is different in tone and substance from a print news column.  The problem here could be in the judging process.  Did Doritos allow itself to be open to truly revolutionary work?  As we only saw the finalists for this competition we cannot say.  Certainly most brands want to save themselves from a Chevy Tahoe fiasco, but more openness might be better in spite of the risk to the brand.  Doritos might have played it a bit too safe.

Branding Bottom Line:
A zesty effort from Doritos has us craving more.

Brand: Emerald Nuts
Execution: TV (Super Bowl), Viral Video
Target: Attention-Deficit Viewers
Rating: **
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
The spot opens to a shot of an office clock as the voiceover says, “Around 3pm when your blood sugar and energy are low,” here we see an office worker falling asleep, “some say that Robert Goulet appears - and messes with your stuff,” here we see Robert Goulet sliding down a rope and messing with the stuff of the sleeping office drone. He then moves about the office, tap-dancing on a sleeping woman’s desk and taping another man into his Steelcase chair and wheeling him down the corridor. “But the natural energy in just one handful of Emerald Nuts,” the narrator continues as we see an alert young man standing in a break room, tossing a nut into his mouth, “is enough to keep Robert Goulet away. Until tomorrow anyway.” Suddenly, Goulet is spider walking back away from the office, clinging to the ceiling on all fours. The spot closes with a package shot of Emerald Nuts. The viral video (see link above for YouTube posting) is a moc-documentary version featuring interviews of the affected workers.

What Works:
Emerald Nuts first broke out with a Super Bowl spot two years ago, expectations were high for their return in 2006. The spot that actually broke was bizarre, to say the least, featuring the tagline “Eagle-eyed Machete Enthusiasts Recognize A Little Druid Networking Under The Stairs” which spells out Emerald Nuts. (see our review here) We can safely say that the new Emerald Nuts Super Bowl spot is not the disaster that spot was. In fact, this spot is entertaining, cohesive and actually attempts to create a selling proposition for the product. The ‘Robert Goulet - office vandal’ angle is fresh and startling and it does grab the attention. It is also funny and well-executed. There is an attempt to brand Emerald Nuts with a verbal mention midway through the spot and the closing shot of the Emerald packaging.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog is a fan of Bob Garfield (particularly his 2004 article ‘The Chaos Scenario’ which has been proven true by subsequent events), but his choice of this spot for four stars as the top pick of the Super Bowl illustrates a repeated problem we have with agency-side critiques of advertising. The question we should all be asking is whether this spot will build the Emerald Nuts brand and whether it will sell more nuts. Garfield suggests that giving office workers energy at 3pm is a brilliant new USP (unique selling proposition). We might agree if we had not been exposed to twenty years of Snickers advertising which has been focused on ‘pick-me up energy’ in office and other situations. So although we agree that the execution of this spot is inspired genius (and Robert Goulet’s dead-pan vandal is hysterically funny), we think the brand positioning is imitative and not ownable.

The second issue with this spot is that for the general, less ad-obsessed public, Robert Goulet may end up being far more memorable than Emerald Nuts as the brand associated with this commercial. Yes, that’s right, we did just say that Robert Goulet overwhelmed another brand in a commercial.

Emerald is still struggling to find out what is unique about the brand - or at least unique about nuts in general. Attempting to own an occasion makes more sense that a features-and-benefits pitch, but unfortunately Emerald chose a value proposition that Snickers already owns. Still, this is a much improved effort over the 2006 disaster.

Branding Bottom Line:
Emerald takes a big step forward but fails to deliver the nuts.

Brand: GM (General Motors)
Execution: TV - Super Bowl
Target: Japanese Car Buyers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David

Description:
A robot on a GM assembly line drops a bolt.  The line stops as an alarm goes off.  The supervisor looks frowningly at the robot who looks and sounds ashamed.  All of the other robots and human workers look on.  The robot is let go and looks dejected.  He sees GM cars drive by and sadly remembers his job.  He tries a series of jobs including selling real estate and being a fast food drive-thru speaker box.  In abject desperation he throws himself off of a bridge.  All of the previous is to the song “All by Myself”. Then as the GM robot is sinking through the water he wakes up and realizes that he had a bad dream.   He is on the assembly line at night when it is not running.  The GM logo appears and a voiceover says, “The GM 100,000 mile warranty.  It’s got everyone at GM obsessed with quality.

What Works:
This is a brilliantly executed :60 second spot whose strong storytelling lent itself well to the epic nature of the Super Bowl.  The animation of the robot with minimalist movements and R2D2-like sounds adds a personality to a piece of metal and steel not unlike the personality that cars assume in the hands of their owners.  The spot singlemindedly focuses on the humiliation the robot feels for making a mistake on the assembly line which does support the underlying brand positioning of “obsession with quality.”  The over-the-top soundtrack works because the idea of a robot with emotions is amusing and novel, at least for an industrial robot.  The execution of this spot is nearly perfect given the concept.

What Doesn’t:
We think General Motors has made a strategic mistake with this spot by putting it under the GM logo.  Although General Motors and the GM brand name are familiar to most consumers, the brand is too broad to support such an ambitious claim.  Japanese companies still personify quality and GM’s attempt to pull the mantle of quality onto its shoulders is not credible.  Moreover, it’s not clear that a consumer buying a Chevy or a Saturn will think “GM quality” and associate it to these brands during purchase.  As well conceived and staged as it is, the mandate of this spot is far too broad.

A smarter path for GM would have been to pick a specific brand and focus relentlessly on improving the brand image along the lines of quality or durability.  Using the robot to launch a defiant “American Quality” pitch for Cadillac or Saturn would have been more effective.  Above all, GM needs to avoid challenging Toyota directly on quality (and arguing with consumers deeply held beliefs about this issue) and find a niche within this brand equity to own.

Bottom Line:
GMs robot has more personality than any Buick.

Issue: A slow Super Bowl for new Advertising Ideas
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

The Super Bowl is the last refuge for destination advertising in America, the last place that people actively seek out television advertising instead of shunning it.

Given that, it’s a shame that advertisers did not make better use of the opportunity this evening. Although there were some interesting themes this year, the strongest trend seemed to be a resurgence of animals in advertising. Although we thought the Blockbuster spot was fairly well executed and the dog spot by Budweiser predictably tugged at heartstrings, the Bud Light Gorillas and Taco Bell Lions were less memorable.

This Super Bowl also cemented a trend that has been growing throughout the year - consumer generated advertising. The two spots, a Frito-Lay and one for the NFL were both interesting and stronger than the average agency-produced spot for this Super Bowl.

Two standounts in the largely undistinguished field were the General Motors “All by Myself” robot spot, touting GM’s 100,000 mile warranties and the Coca-Cola Bottle spot promoting black history month and the historic black coach matchup at the Super Bowl.

Picking the worst spot might be difficult this year, but the spot most likely to damage the career of its actor goes to Revlon and Sheryl Crow, with a tedious and undistinguished ad for hair color. Kevin Federline dreaming of stardom while working at a fast-food restaurant gets an honorary mention.

More to come this week, but these are our first thoughts.

Here at the ThirdWay Advertising Blog we are not shy about our opinions. We often tell our readers that companies are wasting money with ad campaigns. However, we have always stopped short of actually throwing down the gauntlet and challenging a company to stop doing something we think is foolish.

That ends today.

There were two big pieces of news out of Microsoft this week, both of which will affect the Microsoft brand. The first (which we covered in our most recent post) was the launch of the new operating system Windows Vista. We commented that the $500mm being spent to launch this product is wasteful and will not help Microsoft or Vista. We base this on the absurd spending levels, recent Microsoft campaigns and previous Windows launches.

We also pointed out that spending $500mm to promote a product that will get 90% market share without a cent of investment is a little batty, to say the least. It seems that Microsoft is really trying to generate excitement around the product and the company, which sounds more like a job for PR to us.

This is where the second big piece of news comes in. This week, a poll by Harris Interactive and The Wall Street Journal ranked Microsoft as the company with the best corporate reputation, ahead of perennial favorite (and our alma mater) Johnson & Johnson. What was most intriguing about this result is that one of the prime reasons for Microsoft’s huge jump in this poll is the work of the Gates Foundation. After years of being considered the ‘evil empire’, Bill Gates has single-handedly changed the image of his company in the mind of the public with his impressive and original contribution to American Philanthropy. The Gates Foundation is not only huge - it genuinely operates like a business and brings entrepreneurial smarts to big social problems worldwide (like malaria) that were not getting adequate funding and attention.

It turns out that philanthropy has been a better business proposition (in terms of corporate reputation) than the $500 million spent on the ‘People-Ready Software’ campaign last year. Ironically, we predicted this (look at the bottom of our post on People Ready Advertising here). And it makes sense that a company which enjoys a monopoly in many markets should benefit more from image-enhancement and a corporate reputation overhaul than traditional advertising.

So here is our challenge to Microsoft. Cancel the ad buys for Windows Vista. Get a microphone and hold a press conference and say that you’re giving the money to the Gates Foundation on behalf of Windows Vista. And then see what happens. We predict stratospheric media coverage, significant improvement in likeability for Microsoft and even a noticeable sales bump for Windows Vista. Yes - we’re saying this would be a good business investment.

Too much money is spent every year screaming at consumers with messages they have either already heard or do not care about. Microsoft is about to add to the din. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a company do something genuinely useful and see good business results for it?

We suspect Microsoft will not listen to the lonely voice of one advertising blog, but they will listen to you. If you are reading this and you blog it, the voices will accumulate and be heard. And perhaps we can do something good for everyone - including Microsoft.

Issue: Windows Vista Ships - Microsoft Announces $500mm Ad Spend
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri
After over five years, Microsoft is shipping a new operating system, Windows Vista.

Just like the Windows launches of yore, Microsoft is trying to make this a big event (remember the Rolling Stones licensing “Start Me Up” for a Windows launch as their first major sell-out to commercialism).

And this time, Microsoft is upping the ante - literally. AdAge reports that Microsoft will invest an eye-popping $500mm to support the Vista launch.

From a branding perspective, this is an obscene waste of money. Why?

1. More frequency isn’t better:
   Microsoft will overdeliver advertising to many television watchers causing ad fatigue and risking a significant backlash against the company.
2. A technology company should spend smarter:
   Instead of creating a clever viral or online campaign Microsoft is blowing the conventional media trumpet and essentially proving that it just doesn’t understand the modern consumer or the Internet.
3. Vista Will Achieve 90% Market Share with $0 Spend Anyway:
   Which makes it incredibly difficult to understand why Microsoft is advertising to begin with. This is a distribution play - Microsoft will ship Vista with every PC sold in the world in just a few months. Companies will be forced to migrate to stay in synch with the market.

Taken together, these three elements make us think that Microsoft just doesn’t understand how the terrain has shifted underneath them in the years since Windows 3.0 originally launched. Even this advertising blog knows it’s not about the operating system any more. Vista is an important release for Microsoft simply because Windows has too many security holes and is giving consumers an excuse to migrate to Apple’s OS-X. Instead of a consumer company, the Windows division of Microsoft should think of themselves as an infrastructure company. The best publicity for this division would be to ensure that the new system works seamlessly, securely and that future releases trim the fat of unnecessary features that add complexity and bleed processing power.