Marketing Wisdom must be in short supply up in Redmond, Washington as evidenced by the nature of the buzz about the new commercial with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld that presumably promotes Microsoft’s poorly received Vista operating system. Unfortunately for Gates and company, the virtually incomprehensible spot isn’t generating the topspin for Vista that they obviously hoped it would, nor is it an effective riposte to the successful and popular “Get a Mac” campaign.

In the off chance that you’ve been off planet for the last couple of years, the Apple campaign features two actors isolated in a white environment reminiscent of the prison in THX1138. Terminally hip actor Justin Long, as “MAC,” spars with actor John Hodgman, as “PC,” who acts dumpy, clueless but nonetheless slightly embarrassed about himself. It’s not much of a stretch to see the casting as a thinly veiled portrayal of Steve Jobs versus Bill Gates.

The “Get a Mac” campaign has no doubt boosted Mac sales, though the company these days makes more profit from iPods than PC’s. However, if the goal was to prod Microsoft into making an ever greater fool of itself than it did with the release of Vista, the “Get a Mac” campaign is a home run.

The new Microsoft commercial is reputedly part of $300 million advertising campaign to promote Vista in a doubtful public and restore face to Microsoft. The perception of Vista is now so bad that the techie blogosphere heaps Microsoft’s new OS with opprobrium…without even bothering to try it.

The commercial, however, is another matter. It is clearly a flop. And, as if to insure than anyone who is watching may still be giving it the benefit of the doubt, it finishes with Bill Gates shaking his butt at the camera.

It’s hard to know who’s responsible for this travesty, but I strongly suspect that Bill Gates had a hand in the creative process. Certainly the choice of a comedian who has been largely out of the public eye for a decade and the pairing of Seinfeld with a stiff and undeniably geeky Gates suggests that no one with an experienced, or objective eye, was allowed significant input in the effort.

Yep, it looks like a vanity project. And like virtually all vanity efforts it backfires. I suspect that his spot will go down at the 30-second equivalent of “Ishtar,” a $30 million dollar film flop that sold less than $15,000 in tickets in the US.

By the way, I’m a PC guy who never did drink the Mac Kool Aide. I think their computers are over-priced and over-hyped. But their commercials are great!

Google’s G-mail has a wonderful SPAM filter which, when coupled with my ISP’s excellent service, means that I get virtually no SPAM in my e-mail. However, there is a bit of a price to pay for this. I must check me G-mail every day to insure that no legitimate messages have been swept up with the trash. As I sift through the bogus names, offers for cheap drugs, and anatomical enhancement, I note quite a number of folks selling replica watches, handbags and other cheap knock-offs of famous-name goods.

*Sonic.net, in Santa Rosa, CA.

When I consider the idea of a replica – let’s take a Rolex watch as an example – what’s the real value of a cheap copy to the purchaser? Obviously, it’s not the quality of goods. Replicas typically cost much less than the real thing because they’re shoddily made. It’s not the price, because there are many extremely accurate and durable watch brands available at less cost than the scamsters are asking for faux Oyster Perpetuals.

At the end of the day, I believe the value of the replica – especially if it’s a reasonably good copy – is its appearance. The replica Rolex looks to the un- or semi-trained eye like the real thing. The wearer hopes to convey the impression to any stranger or casual acquaintance that they are sporting an expensive watch. In other words, they are perpetrating a fraud in the hopes of garnering esteem. I don’t believe they’re trying to impress their real friends. The people close to them know the truth. The replica purchaser may even brag about the great deal he or she got on the “Rolex.”

Well “duh,” you say. There has long been a sub rosa market for faux Gucci handbags, and anyone who’s been overseas has seen copies of expensive watches and cameras for sale, but lately this onslaught of replicas has started me thinking about the actual value that the legitimate brands being copied confer on their owners.

As much as Rolex, Omega’s, Breitling, and other “high performance” watches claim to be about durability, accuracy, and manifold functions, they’re really just about the ostentatious display of wealth. Few folks who would buy a Titanium-cased, triple-sealed, screw-stem, crystal-faced timepiece that’s rated waterproof to the depth of the Mariana Trench ever wear it anyplace more dangerous than the backseat of a cab.

In other words, these high-end watch makers are selling expensive watches whose outstanding benefit to the buyer is that everyone knows that they’re expensive watches. I can see that some of you are rolling your eyes because you’re thinking that it’s just dawned on me that watches are just another form of gaudy jewelry.

My point is that, if the purpose of a brand is merely to demonstrate ostentatious consumption, then why bother with creating quality, or for that matter function, at all? Why not just take any old thing and slap a high price it on it – making sure of course that you’ve extensively publicized the cost?

A number of years ago I read that Bijan of Rodeo Drive, which claims to be the “one and only ‘by appointment only’ boutique” and is renowned as the single most expensive store in the world, offered a Colt pistol for four to five times the usual retail cost. The justification for the exorbitant price bump was some extraneous plating and the application of the Bijan logo to the pistol’s frame.

Think about this…with the exception of street gangs, LA residents don’t openly sport firearms. And gang-bangers tend to favor weapons that are untraceable. The owner of the Bijan Colt has spent 4-5 times more than he needed to just to demonstrate that…he can.

So what’s the alternative? Unless your business is about parting a fool from his money, make your product (or service) about nothing less than functional quality and, if possible, superiority. That way no one can create a cheap knockoff. And for those folks who buy brands to show off to others? They will be demonstrating an appreciation of superior function, not just elevated cost.

Last time I looked it seemed as if Marketing Wisdom was in short supply among those counseling Senators McCain and Obama. Or perhaps I’m failing to notice genius at work. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Take Senator McCain’s campaign strategy or rather the lack of one. Maybe their plan is to let Mister Obama exhaust his resources while furiously being all things to all people – under the age of 50 that is. McCain’s handlers act is if they own the over-50 crowd. At least that’s what I intuit from their resolute portrayal of their candidate as a Genuine Old White Guy.

Don’t get me wrong. I admire McCain.* I think he has many strengths and wonderful qualities…and I hope the electorate has a chance to experience some of them before voting on Election Day.

*For the record, I admire Obama as well. Though in his case, it’s not for what he’s done, but for the majesty with which he carries himself despite his lack of tempering experience. 

Lord knows the presumptive Republican candidate can’t get much traction by citing on his party’s traditional mantra of smaller, more effective government, not given the Republican’s record of wantonly ignoring their ideals at every opportunity for the last seven years.

Not to say that the Democrats are running on their record either, unless it’s as the party which has done little else for the last 7 years but attempt to stymie the sitting President. Under the circumstances, Senator Obama’s brain trust has chosen to have him serve up Liberal chestnuts that were stale before he was born as he tacks from one issue next adjusting his course to catch the shifting winds of public opinion.

It’s clear that the Obama campaign took the public pulse. What’s not so clear is if they read it correctly. Obama’s apparatchiks divined a wide-spread hunger for change and stopped right there. Hence their candidate’s constant harping on Change. However, they failed to appreciate that only anarchists want change for change’s sake. Or perhaps not, given that the anarchists at MoveOn(dot)org have been leading the Democrats around by the nose ever since Bush was elected in 2000.

Personally, I think the kind of change my fellow Americans want is a change of Leadership, or maybe, they just want SOME leadership. Granted President Bush has occasionally gone off the script handed him by the even older white guys surrounding him. But, in the main, he’s hewed the party line and avoided providing those of us who believed in him the leadership we hoped he would bring, or for that matter acting much like a President.

Whereas Senator Obama acts “presidential” as all get out…if you’re not listening too closely. If you do actually take the time to parse what he’s said, you’ll find that it’s pretty much the same recipe for higher taxes and more Federal nannies that his party has been flogging since FDR took credit for bringing the country out of the Depression. And, no, he didn’t. Read your history.

So, what – if any – is the marketing lesson so far Election ’08?

Packaging!

As of this writing, you have tall versus short; your high school civics teacher versus your granddad; hip versus square; Liberal avatar versus occasional Conservative; and lastly…

…smooth black versus crusty white.