To us, it was never quite clear what this campaign was supposed to achieve. The first ad, in which Seinfeld and Gates go shoe shopping, was at least slightly funny. The second ad, which had both live with a 'normal' family to get back in touch with reality, was just awkward. Indeed, the whole campaign felt out of touch with reality and completely failed to enhance Microsoft's branding.

Advert 1:

Advert 2:

Does that seem like money well spent so far? Below you'll find the commercial and two opposing opinions about it from members of the ReadWriteWeb team.

Con: This Was an Arrogant Waste

Marshall Kirkpatrick: The Windows Not Walls campaign is widely believed to be the first response to Apple's high profile Mac guy/Windows guy series. While Microsoft tried to be hip in its response, it's a faux hip based on a pointlessly obscure message.

The Apple ads do direct feature comparison. What is this ad saying? That Microsoft is lead by famous old people who are really just dorks that maybe you can relate to? That Windows is a lovable "tasty" part of everyday life? The only thing I take from it is that Microsoft has more money than it knows what to do with and is making a dorky attempt to be funny in the face of the PR crisis it faces with Vista.

Show me Jerry Seinfeld meeting people around the world doing good work with Vista and liking it - that would impress me. I thought this one was kind of cute, but spending this kind of money on "kind of cute" is cynicism bordering on obscenity. I don't think it will be effective.

Disclosure: I haven't bought Windows software in 10 years, except for Windows mobile on my phone.

Direct response from Sarah Perez: "I'm sorry, but last I checked, nerds were inheriting the earth! Dorkiness is the new cool."

To view or participate in the poll in this post if you're reading by RSS, click here. Please add "other" responses in comments below.

Pro: It Was Funny, Effective Branding

Sarah Perez: I just finished watching the new Microsoft ad and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. Microsoft has long suffered from a dearth of creative advertising, so it was nice to see something different from them for a change. Heck, it was nice to see anything from them. Microsoft TV ads are pretty rare these days.

I also appreciated the fact that the ad was not a direct counter attack against those Mac vs. PC ads. Although those Mac ads are usually funny, they sometimes cross the line into smugness leading to some serious "Mac guy backlash." There won't be any backlash with this Microsoft ad, though - no matter which side of the fence you're on, it's hard to watch Bill Gates in action and not see him as just the goofy, geeky guy that he is. And the bonus shot of his Shoe Carnival card featuring his mug shot? Hilarious! If anything, Bill came across as a loveable nerd, not a ruthless businessman of an evil corporation, as many like to paint him these days.

Now, you can debate how realistic or unrealistic that image may be, but, let's be honest, ads aren't about delivering "reality" - they're meant to communicate a message. They deliver a brand image. Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the ad agency behind these ads, aren't known for failures, either. From their odd BK King ads to the frightening images of VW drivers getting creamed by oncoming SUVs, CP+B ads stay with you and cement various brands into your head. So what's the brand message behind the new campaign? From this first ad, it seems to me that the message is that "PC guy" isn't such a bad guy after all. Love live PC guy! And the Conquistador!

Disclosure: In addition to writing for ReadWriteWeb, Sarah Perez also writes part time for Microsoft's Channel 10.

Direct response from Marshall Kirkpatrick: "Sarah, your take on it makes me feel like an uptight jerk for saying what I did. I stand behind what I said none the less, I think the ad was an obnoxious waste of money."

The videos are reminiscent of the infamous Milgram Experiment, where Stanford researcher Stanley Milgram fooled subjects into believing that a fake situation was actually real. That experiment has been the subject of decades of ethics debates - Microsoft's Mojave was just creepy. Note: Several readers have responded in comments saying that this is not a legitimate comparison to draw. We will take your thoughts into consideration before drawing wild comparisons between tech marketing campaigns and arguably egregious violations of individual rights in the future. :)

Pain

The Milgram Experiment was one in which subjects were told that they had to administer a shock to someone who gave the wrong answers to questions they were asked. The subjects objected but were told that the test's authority required that they administer the shocks. In fact the people getting the shocks were only actors but the moral of the story was that ordinary people were willing to do terrible things if they were told they had to be an authority figure.

Ethics

Milgram's was a powerfully disturbing study but the point is that it is ethically questionable to subject people to research based on a false premise.

In the Mojave Experiment the only people likely to be subjected to pain will be the future users of the Microsoft operating system.

The lesson of Mojave may be that computer users are highly susceptible to a short, slick demonstration of new technology. It could also be that they are highly susceptible to reviews written by other people. The writings of experts based on their tests and experience seems a far more valid basis for the formation of an opinion, however.

Looking at the faces of the Mojave test subjects when they are told the truth, it appears they know they are being made to look like fools. It's not clear what that foolishness is based on, but it is clear that Microsoft's condescending attitude remains consistent right through this newest marketing campaign.

That's my take on it, but judge for yourself.

Microsoft new release adoption has always had that "resistance is futile" sense of inevitability, but this time customers are saying, "no thanks". It no longer feels inevitable and XP looks just fine as a stop-gap. Cloud computing feels more inevitable. The browser is all that matters, maybe Silverlight, Gears and other ways to tie the PC to the cloud. So Firefox goes from strength to strength, Apple is on a roll and Google Apps get taken seriously.

Mozilla, Apple and Google all executed brilliantly, but they would have had a much harder time if Vista had been on track.

Vista has some cool stuff under the hood. But that's like saying telling people your car has a revolutionary new carburetor when the engine keeps stalling and the back wheel just fell off.

Specifically, Vista has all the network stuff that Ray Ozzie needs to make his P2P vision (re-drafted as Mesh) into a reality. Vista adoption would also drive IPv6 and that enables P2P at a totally different level. P2P matters because it puts PC horsepower back as the driver and that of course makes the OS the driver again. P2P search for example could disrupt Google. P2P video could disrupt YouTube.

But those are all pipe-dreams if Vista stumbles and falls coming out the gate. And Vista seems to stumble and fall all the time. Back in November 2007, financial analysts were saying MSFT stock would recover when SP1 hits the market. But then in July we get lovely stories like this one. When you need to download 56mb and re-boot to get a few more words into a spell-check dictionary, entropy has reached a new level.

Thousands of firms are dependent on Vista success. Everybody gets to sell upgrades when a new release becomes essential. The level of skepticism in this Windows ecosystem has now reached the level where they are increasingly looking at alternatives, whether they are cloud based or Apple or Linux. if Microsoft loses the confidence of this ecosystem, they have a serious problem.

Without the massive leverage from the OS, Microsoft has to play catch-up on a field that is tilted in the wrong direction. That must be a very uncomfortable feeling and a new one for them. Combining # 2 and # 3 in search is not by itself a smart play. It does not do anything to grow the search volume or disrupt the # 1.

Most of the commentary has been about Yahoo's problems. Microsoft's Vista problems might be worse. Looking at the 6 month stock chart for Microsoft vs Yahoo vs NASDAQ implies that investors see it this way. YHOO is actually a tad above NASDAQ and MSFT is way below. 6 months is an eon to the funds that make the call on this.

Yahoo shareholders are being asked to accept a mix of cash and Microsoft stock. How comfortable should they be that Microsoft really has the Vista problem licked? If they have big doubts on that score they might be better sticking with an independent Yahoo.