Of course there's such a thing as bad publicity. Bad publicity is something your competitors can take advantage of. It scares people away; it attracts nobody new to your product. It raises round criticism when you spend $300 million for it.

Microsoft didn't need a typical ad OR a bad ad. They needed a good campaign. They got a bad one.

Microsoft needs to control the conversation once again. They can't do that with ads saying "Vista is awesome". They have to come from left field, and that's what they're doing.

It's different, and only time will tell for sure, but I think it's possible that we're witnessing the beginning of a campaign that people will be studying in marketing schools for decades. I'm not sure if it will go down as genius or hubris, but you're definitely wrong in writing them off at this point.

The only bad publicity is your obituary.

"Controlling the conversation," I like that. The ads are way clever, since they connect with the average person in a sitcommy, "yah, but not really," way. It's completely breaking the ad formula all together.

I like that last quote quite a lot. Quite an epigram.

I think that it's POSSIBLE that what you say is true. However, I don't believe that it's very LIKELY. The fact that Microsoft only put out two Seinfeld ads is a sign that things may not be working out well for them, after all. However, I won't roundly mark it a failure yet.

Nah, I believe it was the plan. Those ads take months to produce and land on television. From what I've read, politicians excepted, the lead time on TV ads is generally 3-6 months or so.

Whatever the third ad is, it had to have entered the planning stage before the Seinfeld ads even aired.