Wow! I honstly didn't think the ads could get any worse, but as a student of advertising I'm trying to figure out who thought this approach was a good idea and who approved it.
On the plus side, Gates comes off as a nicer, sharper, funnier guy than Seinfield (who comes off as a complete jerk) and a better actor -- especially with children.
On the down side,
1. the ad makes fun of Microsofts largest supporters (the middle-class) and their children portraying them as clueless, stupid, spiteful and petty,
2. portrays Gates and Seinfield as considering themselves superior in every way to the hard-working, middle-class who support them,
3. presents middle-class kids as stupid, petty, obese, easily distracted and bought, totally uncool and not the hope of the future.
I don't understand how making fun of the very people you are trying to persuade to buy your product is suppose to enhance the MS brand. Does MS not get that the success of the Apple ads if that they sell the idea that if you switch from MS to Mac you'll become hipper, cooler, technologically more comfortable as well as make your life easier? Why suggest that your customers are hopeless, clueless losers and suggest that if you buy MS products you are doomed to a life of left-overs, tastelessness and renting out rooms to strangers to stay financially afloat?
But then again I'm still reeling from people actually thinking Palin is a "role model mother" and a competent VP candidate...