Fired part 3...

http://valleywag.com/5051860/microsoft-ad-agency-confirms-new-seinfeld-ad-produced-yet-not-running

Ok, so apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that someone otta be fired. Despite the spin from Microsoft's PR machine, the ad company themselves are admitting that MS has put an indefinite hold on ads-about-nothing. Sounds like someone at Crispin Porter & Bogusky might be a little ticked at the idea; why else would you leak the fact that your multi-million dollar client has pulled the plug on a campaign, when they themselves claim it is all part of the advertising strategy??

While I admit and acknowledge the inherent pro-Apple bias of the following article, some of the points made still hold true: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/18/microsofts_300_million_ad_campaign_tumbles_with_new_pc_ads.html

Points such as:

• Crispin Porter & Bogusky are featured on Apple's website for their use of Mac Minis because of the need for a reliable platform. Interestingly, since that article was written, YESTERDAY, the profile has been pulled from the Apple website! I wonder who squawked? Apple, MS or CP&B - my money is on MS as they have the most to lose...
• "The problem of course is that Apple presents the Mac in contrast to PC because it wants to avoid any unnecessary mention of Windows. By copying Apple's line, Microsoft will be spending millions to advertise the PC rather than the Windows brand."
  Though "PC" is used interchangeably with "Windows Machine" in the vernacular, PC is a generic term for pretty much any Personal Computer that doesn't run Apple OS (and, arguably, even for those that do - the personal computer I'm writing this on happens to be an iMac...). While it's one thing for Apple to take shots at the ubiquitous "PC" running Vista and compare it to a Mac, thus highlighting the uniqueness of the Apple experience -- which I think is more the line of reasoning in the ads than an avoidance of mentioning Windows -- it is quite another for Microsoft to assume that "I'm a PC" means "MS Windows." It is akin to Kleenex running an ad that refers only to "facial tissues" and NEVER refers to their own brand. Hubris or folly? Only time will tell.
• "It's somewhat ironic that Microsoft's upper management, after hiring Crispin Porter + Bogusky to inject some new life in the the (sic) company's brand, hastily decided to yank the ads before they had a chance to go anywhere."
  Not only do I completely agree with the above statement, the fact that the next 5 or 6 sentences in the article state pretty much exactly what I said on September 12 only goes to prove the brilliance of Prince McLean. :)

"I've been saying it for years!"

Proverbs 25:2

 

I picked a crocus

Through a barb-wire fence

... a scratch

... a velvety flower

Dorothy Scott Shackleton (nee Campbell)

Sept. 18, 1916 - Sept. 14, 2008

Otta get fired, redux...

Ok - so this one is a little better; I actually chuckled a couple of times, and the ad's content sort of connects with the concept (get it - connects - ha ha).

But it still seems to communicate to me that Microsoft (Gates and, by association, Seinfeld) have to work hard to connect with real people, don't do that very effectively, and have set their sights on unrealistic goals (i.e. goldfish with email and an amobea with a website). It tells me nothing about what Microsoft does or doesn't do, why I should buy Windows instead of their competition (read Apple computers) or even what product(s) Microsoft is trying to sell. It seems to be aimed strictly at brand recognition and customer loyalty: "we're clever enough, cool enough and rich enough to hire Jerry Seinfeld, so stay with us and don't believe all of those things Apple (or anyone else) is saying about Vista."

I don't know; it's still not working for me... now maybe Simon Cowell and Ryan Seacrest arguing about how good Vista is (Cowell: "It's like a really bad Kareeokee performance on a cruise ship!"; Seacrest: "How can you say that? That doesn't even make any sense!"; voiceover: "Windows Vista - not as bad as you think!")
Has more appeal to me than the current campaign. But remember - you heard the idea here first!

Somebody otta get fired!

The title of this post links to a video (I wasn't able to embed it); watch it and then read - it's the only way this little rant will make any sense!

What a waste of an advertising budget! Reportedly a $300 million campaign, with Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates, and this is the best they could do? Really, someone should lose their job over this ad.

Personally, I agree with this quote from Slashdot: "If this is Microsoft's response to the 'I'm a Mac' ads, it should fold up its tent and tell the world to switch to Apple."


Now, if you really want to see a funny ad, go here.

If someone says, "I've been thinking about this for a long time," ask them to think about it a bit longer!

Why do we find it necessary to do this to one another? How do we convince ourselves that this is somehow helpful to the other person?

I'm talking about the verbal slagging that some people find so easy to unload on someone else. The barrage of verbal grenades, bullets, sticks and stones that often begins with "This has been bothering me for a while now; I really need to make things right between us..."

Over the past few weeks I've witnessed a handful of these "I need to tell you something about yourself" encounters; actually, more accurately, I've witnessed one first-hand, and witnessed the impact of at least two others on the lives of their recipients/victims. And all of these have been set in the context of the church.

I've noticed some commonalities in these events:

• The "sharer" is convinced that his or her motives are noble, even Christ-like (and that he or she is innocent in their desire or need to say something);
  
• the concerns are often shared by "several others," "a number of us" who are always unnamed and un-numbered (interestingly, Wikipedia refers to these kinds of phrases as "weasel words," used to try to bolster the authority or significance or what's being said, but without actually offering any real support);
  
• what's being "shared" is a concern that has built up over time in the mind/heart of the "sharer";
  
• the intention is to critique some kind of behavior or activity in hopes of helping the recipient to grow, but most often the "sharing" ends up being an attack ad hominem and does nothing to affirm the value, dignity, motives or character of the victim;
  
• the parties involved have, at most, a superficial relationship - though they know each other, it is much more as acquaintances than as friends
• the person doing the sharing only knows part of the story behind their concern
• the end result is that the person who "shared their concern" feels like the other person is "unresponsive," "hard-hearted," "unwilling to change," defensive," "misunderstood my motives"...
• the person receiving the barrage feels shat upon
• and finally, the only thing that changes is the relationship between the two individuals -- what little there was declines to even less.

What is missing in these exchanges? What makes them so destructive and so not redemptive? If we are sharing the truth with one another, isn't that enough?

For certain, one element that is missing is love. I don't mean the generic "brotherly love" that we claim in default for our fellow Christ-follower. At best that is a kindly disposition towards someone we know from across the aisle; at worst, it is only an affinity based on our preferred brand of: theology, worship style, preaching, preacher, church location... It cannot, and should not, be called love. It allows two true injustices in the community we call church: the kind of dignity-shredding attack I'm talking about now, and the kind of soul-killing ambivalence we call "tolerance."

Love is genuine concern for another, over myself. It is true affection, and loyalty, and it causes me to rejoice or suffer with the joy or pain of the other. When love discloses a concern, it does so only as strongly as necessary and always as gently as possible. It weeps with every tear shed, it ferociously guards the other person's dignity, it assumes the worth and value of the person even while addressing the worst and most destructive of their behaviour. And it does address the worst and most destructive of their behaviour. It doesn't shrink back from a painful conversation. But love's goal is restoration: restoration of the relationship, restoration of fellowship, restoration of community.

We need to make room in the church for painful conversations; I need to make allowance in my life to hear painful comments. But we need to make them -- I need to hear them -- in the context of genuine relationship. If I'm not prepared for you to get angry at me for my comments, and then walk through that anger with you until we resolve things, if I don't take every measure to protect and honour you even as I speak to your weaknesses, faults and sins, then I better keep my mouth shut and my "concerns" to myself. Otherwise, what more am I than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal?

When I first started thinking about this blog, I had the image in my mind of a monkey, at the zoo, flinging its own feces at passersby. In fact, my first thought was to title this entry "Crap flinging monkeys." Obviously, better judgment prevailed. But I can't get away from the image. It strikes me that we would look a whole lot less like crap flinging monkeys if we took the time to think through our criticisms and how best to share them with the ones we love and spent even more time thinking about how to love the ones we feel the need to criticize.

Away for far too long

I'm actually amazed that bogger hasn't closed my account! It's been nearly TWO YEARS since I posted anything... and yet here it is... still as I left it.

I'm feeling those stirrings again: the need to write some things down. I don't know what, yet, just that I'm feeling the need to write. If you have any suggestions, send them my way... I never know what's going to be the inspiration for a rant :)