John C. Dvorak
Scenario: Two guys meet in a shoe store. The one guys offers a churro to
the other—an obvious phallic symbol, possibly a code word. The guy
refuses. So the guy with the churro starts to massage the other guy's
foot, and asks about what he's feeling. The guy who relented at first
says a definite code word: "leather." The two look furtively at each
other for an uncomfortably long time. They scene is just short of a wink
taking place. One mentions "showering" with clothes on. The next thing
you know the twosome, now each holding rigid churros, walk off together.
One asks the other to adjust his underwear as a "sign."
Now if this isn't some sadomasochistic, kinky pickup scene then what's
the point? There is too much symbolism and footsy for this to be
anything other than a tryst waiting to happen. Perhaps it is a parody of
the "Mac versus PC" ads, which may have homo*****c overtones that nobody
has considered, and this is Microsoft's way of asking, "What's with
those two guys, anyway?"
The other possibilities for the ad include one I heard posited over the
weekend: that it is somehow symbolic of Windows' versatility and
affordability. The cheap store is a metaphor for cheap PCs or some such
thing. I suppose anything is possible, but who's going to get it? It's
too ridiculous.
Now the possibility does exist that this is a commercial about nothing,
similar to the Seinfeld TV show, which means the rest of the series will
have to be as stupid as this one. And, yes, there is an effectiveness
aspect to this, since you will stop and look at the next ad in much the
same way you always want to watch a Mac versus PC ad. So kudos to the
agency for at least getting that far with this scheme.
And of course, there's my basic theory (if I am NOT going to go with the
kinky-*** thesis, that is), which is that the ads are just bad. But they
are so bad you will still want to watch them out of morbid curiosity,
kind of like watching a train wreck.
So what's next in the series? One conjecture has it that they'll redo
the old Seinfeld set, and Gates will visit and comment on the Mac that
Jerry owned. Derisive remarks will ensue. But showing up at the old
apartment invites further exploration of the S&M kinky-*** context I
mentioned. Why would Bill Gates go to Jerry Seinfeld's apartment? I
didn't get the impression that the two of them were in Manhattan in the
first commercial.
Another idea is to put Bill and Jerry in a car—similar to the old
Ballmer and Gates fake advertisement where they drove around to berate
Sun Microsystems. Jerry and Bill could drive around and make fun of
things. But why would they be driving off together in the first place?
Generally speaking, each would have his own car at the mall. Let's
assume one walked there. So one would have to ask the other whether he'd
like a "ride," which again has innuendo built in. It's going to be
difficult for them to work their way out of this structure they've
created, once you see the kinky-*** angle.
I could be wrong about all this, and I assume that nobody is doing this
overtly—it's just coming out on its own from some subconscious source at
Microsoft. All I hope for is that we never see either of those guys in
leather with a whip. It would be an unpleasant image.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
|
