Microsoft Boots Jerry Seinfeld From Campaign

microsoft_jerry_bill.jpg

While Microsoft claims it was always part of the plan, the software giant is bidding farewell to Jerry Seinfeld after just two commercials. After all that hype? After spending a reported $10 million? After just a few weeks on air? Yea right, it was always part of the plan. The ads sucked and Jerry Seinfeld was a poor choice. Someone finally woke up and smelled the stench.

It seems the outcry against the ads and the overwhelming WTFness they generated has caused Microsoft to question the direction of the campaign and, perhaps, realize Seinfeld was not, in fact, the right choice for the company's Save Vista effort.

On Thursday, Microsoft will make the announcement official and introduce what they are calling phase two of the campaign.

by Steve Hall    Sep-17-08   Click to Comment   
Topic: Brands, Campaigns, Celebrity, Strange   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Comments



Comments

Jerry Seinfeld must be relieved to no longer be obligated to do these silly spots with the lame copy. As for Microsoft, they should have booted KPB. :-)

Posted by: Herbert on September 17, 2008 9:08 PM

Not that he needed it, but I think Jerry probably got over the silliness every time he sees the balance in his bank account. I don't "get" the commercials and would love to get a real explanation from the advertising group that's responsible for the ads.

Posted by: Jason Bean on September 17, 2008 10:41 PM

Next they should fire John Hodgman. He's a terrible brand ambassador.

Posted by: Jessie Birks on September 18, 2008 1:52 AM

Jerry Seinfeld wasn't a poor choice; he's never been particularly funny, and they got the face they paid for.

THE PROBLEM WAS THE WRITING. Those commercials seemed like they were written by a 3rd grader in 1952. THERE WAS NO WIT TO THEM.

The NYTimes has a piece today with the insane statement "The teaser ads have generated considerable discussion since they started on Sept. 4, not all of it positive."

ARE THEY KIDDING? The "reporter", Stuart Elliot, should be fired. Understatement of the month.

By the way, John Hodgman rocks, even if he does shill for Apple.

Posted by: B on September 18, 2008 11:20 AM

CP+B won this business over Fallon, JWT and McCann. It's hard to imagine any of them doing anything duller than the two Seinfeld spots or more lame than co-opting the PC character from Apple.

Posted by: john on September 18, 2008 2:21 PM

That would be the first time Stuart Elliot has been called a "reporter." Doesn't one have to do one's own research to earn that title? *adds own zing*

Posted by: Kevin Horne on September 20, 2008 8:34 PM







Featured FREE Resource: