Microsoft's grand plan: pure genius

I've worked it out! I have now deciphered Microsoft's true genius. And it was staring me in the face.

It's all about differentiating itself from what the Seattle firm has identified recently as a creditable competitor.

In mid November, Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer warned at a yearly shareholders' meeting that Microsoft needed to improve the standing of Windows in the future. That's true, even though it's on oh-so-many desktop computers.

People may not all love the system, but boy, do they use it. To the shareholders, Ballmer acknowledged that Apple had cut into Microsoft's share in 2009. He downplayed the amount, labelling it "a couple of tenths of a per cent", but added that even the claimed amount was significant and worth fighting for.

I don't think he needs to fear. Luckily for him, and his shareholders, Microsoft is still deploying its genius plan: Microsoft's whole campaign is based on embarrassment.

All of this plays out on what the New York Times calls 'The Ad Wars'. Apple is apparently the second-most prolific technology advertiser. Last year, Apple's ad spend vaulted to US$133 million, surpassing Hewlett-Packard and IBM (according to the tracking firm TNS Media Intelligence).

But Number One, of course, was Microsoft. Microsoft spent US$191 million.

Apple's ads have fared well in "the war for consumers' hearts". They reiterate a common message, clear to every viewer.

Microsoft's 'Shoe Circus' ad, in which the exceedingly well-paid Jerry Seinfeld helped the exceedingly well-heeled Bill Gates (the former CEO of Microsoft) buy shoes, really was a circus. It failed miserably with consumers. After seeing the ad, both Apple and Microsoft users polled in New York had more negative perceptions of Microsoft in the areas of innovation, technology, trouble-free design, warranty and pricing.

I figured this must have been a bad thing for Microsoft at the time ... until I figured out Microsoft's exceedingly cunning plan: that's what Microsoft wants you to think! How else do you differentiate from a company (Apple) that's perceived as smart, click, clever, well designed and functional?

The whole thing may have been devised by esteemed ad man Alex Bogusky, of (Mac-using) ad firm Crispin Porter + Bogusky. Bogusky is renowned for reviving declining brands. Andrew Keller, one of Crispin's co-executive creative directors, says "To try to be cool is to not be cool." Well, exactly.

Apple's adds probably annoy some, but many find them slick and the messages are certainly clear. It's the casual-but-smart (-arse) Mac guy vs the loveable but frustrated PC guy. The ads gratify us Mac fans with their smarmy 'better than thou' patter, while pointing out clear differences between the Mac and the Windows experiences. How do you counter that?

By playing opposites. Microsoft paid a comedian - who everyone knew was a Mac user - a lot of money to perform in an utterly mystifying ad series. The first was set in a shoe store while some (what looked to me like) Latinos stared through the window, looking as if they wished they, too, could afford the shoes Bill Gates was trying on.

Just in case this didn't hammer the differentiating message through enough, the ad had an equally mystifying follow-up, which made me squirm with embarrassment. Suddenly, the series was pulled. Now I realise that this wasn't actually a misstep, but just a very clever, extremely well-researched ploy to hammer home the fact that Microsoft is really not Apple, and should not be conceived of as anything like Apple.

Microsoft's so-called 'laptop hunter' ads were more successful, pointing out (a little misleadingly) the price differences between Apple and competitor laptops. Nice of Microsoft to push computer hardware companies, don't you think? And mention Apple by name, too.

These ads gained some traction with consumers, but they were getting off-message. I mean, they were on-message, since they were clear in content and intent, and easy for consumers to understand: computers running a Microsoft OS were mostly cheaper than those running OS X. But this made it off-message with the rest of Microsoft's genius campaign.

The software firm got back in the saddle pretty quickly though, by announcing it had sponsored an episode of the controversial US cartoon series Family Guy. This was exciting news. Then Microsoft scuttled the Family Guy special before it went to air. Not very Apple, hey?

This is genius, too: it said 'Look, you cool young people who would normally prefer and/or recognise Apple as a top brand, we're cool too!' But then, to please the Parents Television Council, among other 'concerned' lobby groups, the episode was dropped, reiterating the message "we are still servicing Middle America".

Masterful. It's saying "Look, we're hip! But don't worry, we're actually conservative! And better, we look bungling, so we are not like Apple at all."

The cleverness is almost overwhelming. Not to mention, prodigiously expensive, just to push the message that Microsoft has made a lot of money out of those '90 per cent' of computer users, and can afford to blow it any way it wants, thank you very much. Jerry Seinfeld with that?

Microsoft, apparently not wanting to do things by half measures, has taken its approach right to the top of the firm. How do you come up with someone who is the complete opposite of Steve Jobs? Jobs is slick, a great presenter who has defined 'smart-casual' as top executive dress (hear hear - suits and ties are so last century). Jobs is almost worshipped by the Apple fans and has a clear cut, autocratic style that has stamped its mark on high-quality Apple-badged products for decades.

What's the opposite of that, you may wonder? Enter stage right - Steve Ballmer! It's pure genius! What lengths will Microsoft go to next?

- Mark Webster mac.nz

PHOTO: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. (AP)