Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop

WORK & MONEY by Randy Williams HARD SELL: WHEN OS STANDS FOR OLD SHINOLA Published November 14, 1996 Previous columns by Randy Williams	Part of being a smart shopper -- of using your hard-earned money to its maximum potential -- is learning to separate the slick message from the stark truth about a product. This week's "Watchdog" entry highlights a case where a perfectly fine piece of software was being sold in a way that made the company itself seem arrogant -- and brought into question the manufacturer's attitude toward and loyalty to its customers. An exhaustive and no doubt expensive ad campaign for Microsoft's Windows 95 operating system ran in major magazines this past summer. Because Tripod is primarily a Mac/Unix shop, and because I also use a Mac at home, I don't have much experience with or opinion on the product itself -- I'm sure it's lovely (and bless the pointed little heads on the folks in Redmond for buying ad banners at Tripod, by the way). What piqued my interest was the wild and wacky way that Microsoft was marketing its little stack o' floppies. This campaign was not quite as weird as the spooky print ads for the bizarre Microsoft Bob, but it came awfully close. Major computer magazines began reporting back in the dog days of summer that Win95 was not flying off the shelves quite as quickly as had been expected. You could stop by any office supply or computing store and see towering mounds of Win95 software boxes gathering dust. Many consumers were running old, under-powered machines that couldn't handle the steep system requirements of Win95. High-end weenies seemed to be looking past 95 to the upcoming release of Windows NT 4.0. Clearly it was time for a blue-light special. But, rather than resort to such fire-sale measures, the promotional gurus at Microsoft stepped in to give sales of its fledgling OS a boost with a series of ubiquitous magazine ads. Most major national rags were covered in them -- "Newsweek" had three of these full-page spreads in each issue for more than a month. The fact that the ads appeared was not surprising; however, the way Microsoft attempted to lure consumers went beyond surprising and into the realm of the downright baffling.
The ads went beyond surprising and into the realm of the downright baffling.	Consider some samples from actual advertisements. Example one: Beneath a blurry, faux-artsy black-and-white picture and an annoyingly "hip" mixed type headline which read "Windows 95 and your wildly impatient side" was a curious sales pitch. "You don't wait well," the ad conveniently told us about ourselves, "so why are you using Windows 3.1? With Windows 95, the Internet no longer needs to be a slow and agonizing ordeal." Another ad cited press blurbs as proof that, when it comes to Windows 95, "enthusiasm is building!!" One tech guru was quoted as saying that Win95 is "a much better way to go than older Windows and DOS." Holy cow! Now that is unbridled enthusiasm! No wonder the ad went on to ask us why on earth we "settle for Windows 3.1."
The model appeared to have leaned too close to the log-chipper with his fly open.	And it got weirder. One ad had a close-up of a teenage guy's face making an expression that looked like it could be the result of either a moment of pure bliss or the sudden realization that he had leaned too close to the log-chipper with his fly open. But, it turned out, he looked that way because "games designed for the Windows 95 operating system are more real ... no longer is time wasted entering arcane setup commands like you have to with MS-DOS." Are you noticing a trend here? Microsoft wasn't making any claims for the superiority of Windows 95 over competing operating systems -- it was only saying that it sucked less than Microsoft's own products! For whom was the Internet a "slow, agonizing ordeal"? For users of Windows 3.1, that's whom. Who had to waste time "entering arcane setup commands"? Users of MS-DOS, naturally. As for that stop-the-presses plug from an "industry expert" who states that Windows 95 is a "much better way to go than old Windows and DOS" ... well, some would argue, so is being beaten about the face and neck with a sock full of loose quarters.
"We really sold you a cut-rate bill of goods with those last two products. Why not come back for more?"	That the company's own ads came right out and admitted that their old software had been a nightmare to deal with could almost be construed as admirable. But the niggling point remained that Microsoft still arrogantly expected the very people who had put up with these white elephants to remain loyal to its brand name. "We really sold you a cut-rate bill of goods with those last two systems," the ads seem to say. "Why not come back for more?" The ads abruptly stopped appearing about six weeks after they were first trotted out. Perhaps someone at whichever advertising firm handles Microsoft figured out that this was an ill-advised approach. Perhaps some hapless ad exec was fitted for cement shoes -- hard to say. That Win95 is, by all accounts, a fine and reliable product is almost beside the point. After all, 95 is hardly the be-all and end-all of Microsoft's plans for operating systems. The software giant is already leading developers and customers alike towards Windows NT. Beyond that, who knows? Will it be, as had been announced, Windows 97? Or considering Microsoft's slipping release schedules (topped only by Apple's -- remember when we thought Copland would be available in late 1995?), Win98? Windows XYZ? Windows 2001? Windows In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida? And how will these future variations be sold -- by inferring that customers were morons for buying Windows 95? Clearly, this brilliant marketing scheme ran the risk of coming back to haunt.
Perhaps some hapless ad exec was fitted for cement shoes.	Still, Microsoft is one of the most-imitated and successful companies in the world, so we may yet be bombarded with an onslaught of similar ad campaigns. In the interest of helping my friends and associates in the world of advertising, I have compiled a few suggestions below. Feel free to pillage these ideas -- you can buy me dinner next time I'm down in NYC and we'll call it even. For the Ford Motor Company: "Enjoy the no-frills experience of the Ford Escort -- reliable tests show it's 15 times less likely to explode on impact than the Pinto!" For Johnson & Johnson's OB tampons: "We understand that feminine hygiene products build their reputation on comfort and trust. That's why we are now well within industry standards for instances of death by toxic shock." For Apple Computer: "What's On Your PowerBook 5300? Probably a sizzling mound of fire extinguisher foam -- so why not try our next-generation laptops?" Hey, I could even get into the act myself: I don't have much of a conclusion for this column. I admit it: I shanked at the end. But wait 'til you see what I've got on tap for the next "Watchdog" entry... Randy Williams is an editor and columnist for Tripod. Despite rumors to the contrary, he is not related to "Laverne and Shirley" star Cindy Williams. He does, however, live alone with his imaginary friend Squigette. © 1996 Tripod, Inc. All rights reserved.