CES: Where Vista Wasn't
|
Windows Vista was everywhere—and yet nowhere—at this year's Consumer Electronics Show. |
Vista was everywhere because the operating system was on most PCs. But it was nowhere in terms of branding and marketing. Microsoft banners and other promotional material reverted to "Windows" branding with no "Vista." Where Microsoft had Vista, something else accompanied it, like Windows Live, Media Center or Windows Media Extender.
Now what does that say about Vista, the brand, and Microsoft's commitment to Windows XP's successor? Has Microsoft given up on Windows Vista—as a brand, at least? The answer is perhaps yes.
I didn't immediately notice Vista's absence at CES. During an evening event on Tuesday, Microsoft gave out chocolates with Windows, not Windows Vista, branding to analysts and reporters. In reviewing my photos from the day, I saw the Vista brand almost nowhere, even on Microsoft's big Windows tent pavilion.
Microsoft's Vista commitment is obvious by the operating system's brand absence. CES has been an important product launch venue, including for Windows Vista. CES 2008 was a natural venue to push out the Vista brand. Instead Microsoft emphasized Windows alone or Vista combined with something else.
"Microsoft may have recognized Vista as [being] a damaged brand," said Paul DeGroot, Directions on Microsoft's lead analyst for Sales, Support and Desktop Strategies. "Windows is the brand for the long term."
The market hasn't warmly embraced Vista, hurting the brand. The blogosphere has been particularly unkind about Vista features and performance.
"Vista is going to sell on new computers, but there's no point in them continuing to invest a lot in that brand," DeGroot said. "Microsoft can make a huge amount of money on Windows even if it's not very good. How do you get 85 percent profit margins on a product that's fairly pedestrian? Microsoft may see that they missed the mark this time and they'll do better next time."
The Vista "WOW" marketing campaign disappeared nearly as soon as it started, by about April 2007. Whatever Windows' future, Vista isn't it, at least as a brand. Microsoft already is talking about Windows 7, which is another hint of the Vista commitment.
Windows Better Together
Strangely, the branding shift to the more generic Windows brand could be the best strategy for winning over more consumers and businesses to Windows Vista. In its rebranding approach, Microsoft is positioning Windows as a broad brand embracing the desktop, the mobile and the cloud.
During his CES keynote on Sunday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates touted the number of Windows Vista users, which was the only time he spoke about the operating system by itself. The other times, Gates spoke about Vista in context of other Microsoft products, particularly Windows Live and Windows Mobile.
"They want to associate the Live services with the Windows brand," DeGroot said.
Microsoft is shopping around a $300 million ad campaign (as Advertising Age reported in November), but it's for Windows Vista and Windows Live, rather than just the operating system. Microsoft is looking at including Windows Mobile, too.
The approach has real merit. Microsoft considers Windows as the base platform for delivering other products or services, what company executives used to describe as "better together." But Microsoft hasn't told a good better-together story, with too many fragmented brands under the Windows moniker. The Windows rebranding better unifies disparate products that work with Vista and early marketing better describes real-world, contextual usage scenarios.
By increasing emphasis on Windows Live and Windows Mobile, Microsoft also can shore up some of the operating system's branding and functional shortcomings. Microsoft can achieve serendipitously what it couldn't get directly. I'm convinced that if not for Microsoft's antitrust settlement, Windows Live services would be integrated into the operating system rather than being offered separately. Windows Vista + Windows Live campaign is perhaps as close to bundling as Microsoft dares go while achieving some of the bundled benefits.
Branding is a tricky business. Companies like Microsoft spend billions of dollars building up brand equity. Branding is toughest when the product is more invisible. Intel microprocessors are an excellent example. The chip maker aggressively markets its brand through broadcast, print and online advertising. Outside enthusiast and IT management circles, operating systems are largely invisible. People don't buy computers for the operating system but to do stuff.
Much of that doing stuff is on the Web—"the cloud"—in the living room or on the mobile phone. The extended Windows branding makes sense in such context and for showing people what they can do with one, two, three or more Microsoft products.
That said, Microsoft should have been able to achieve these branding and sales objectives from Windows Vista as a brand. There, Microsoft must contend with both Vista's failure and success as a brand. The failure: Negative Vista perceptions created by blogger, developer, enterprise IT organization, news media and solution provider initial response to Vista. The success: Vista has become shorthand in a much stronger way than Windows XP. Vista vernacular diminishes the value of the Windows brand. Windows is the main brand, not Vista. But Vista is common shorthand for the operating system.
Even if Windows Vista had been a resounding success, Microsoft should have rebranded because of the Vista shorthand. Microsoft has spent billions building Windows brand equity and a few hundred million on Vista. The more valuable brand should be obvious.
Related Posts:
- CES 2008's Big Thing is a Little Book, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 9, 2008
- Windows Vista's 100 Million, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 6, 2008
- Gates and the New User Face, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 6, 2008
- Real Vista Marketing Finally Begins, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 30, 2007
- 2008: Definitive, Unsolicited Advice for Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 28, 2007
- Defending Windows Vista, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 27, 2007
- The Problem with Bundling, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 10, 2007
- What Went Wrong With Windows Vista, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 6, 2007
- Live 2.0: It's About Windows Not Google, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 6, 2007
Comments (27)
Majority of new PCs ship without Windows Vista, Gates (unintentionally) reveals
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/67663,majority-of-new-pcs-ship-without-windows-vista-gates-unintentionally-reveals.aspx
Quotes: "Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system is proving far less popular with new PC buyers than Windows XP did during XP's first year on the market, if statements by company chairman Bill Gates at this week's Consumer Electronics Show are any measure.."
Posted by chips | January 10, 2008 9:33 PM
When Microsoft released the name of XPs succesor it was Longhorn. Everyone went woooooow Longhortn. When Longhorn started to delay and drop features it was quickly renamed to Vista. Everyone went wooooooow Vista. Even though it was after all basically the same code base as Longhorn. Now Microsoft labels Vista as Windows. Hoping everyone goes woooooow. Yet after all it is basically Vista. And so will the story go with Windows 7 etc. Until they do an OS X move everything will be pretty much the same ol' story.
Some consumers are getting the message others are still buying Windows (Vista, Longhorn, whatever) digging deeper into Microsoft dependency.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | January 10, 2008 10:08 PM
"Windows" is much broader than just one version.
After all, there many versions of Windows Vista. There are versions suitable for nearly all needs and many types of users.
That is just the beginning of it, and branding any version of Windows as "Windows" doesn't suggest one version is bad and another is good.
What Microsoft is doing makes perfect sense and most especially so in light of the many types of Windows there. Windows CE, Embedded, Mobile, etc..
This branding effort does a lot to reinforce the Windows brand as a broad platform, upon which all else is built, launched, used and supported.
It's a good move.
Posted by H3 | January 10, 2008 10:18 PM
Remember that Windows Vista has a distinctive logo thats easily recognized and associated with the OS. The blue pearl is clicked on by 100 million Windows Vista users each day so the brand printed in the minds of so many users.
Windows Live logo is a white pearl that shows a difference between it and the Windows 'Vista logo'
Posted by Andre Da Costa | January 10, 2008 11:36 PM
Andre, honestly I hadn't noticed that and I work on the computer all day. Guess 99,999,910 Windows Vista users haven't noticed it either.
H3, "Windows" is the name an uncreative company uses to brand all of its products to push them out the door. Similar thing happened with .NET and we all know how that ended.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | January 11, 2008 12:22 AM
Gerardo: Longhorn was the codename for the Vista project, never a product name. Every Microsoft project, (Windows or not) has a codename e.g. Windows 95 was "Chicago". Product names are determined years after a project's commencement.
Posted by Mike | January 11, 2008 12:51 AM
It's so obvious here...Microsoft is trying to slide Vista over to the back burner, and they aren't being very clever about it....
Posted by mgo | January 11, 2008 1:23 AM
The Vista name is a marketing liability now, and Microsoft would rather just call it "Windows," again, as that goes back to an earlier time, when "Windows," did not suck so badly as Vista does.
Truely, Vista is not selling, only those who buy a new computer are getting it is the rule. Vista has a generally negative impression with the public, and this is Microsoft way of addressing and acknownledging this.
Posted by sam | January 11, 2008 1:46 AM
The trouble with the word "windows" is it's too generic a term. It puts people in mind of panes of glass that need cleaning to get the smear of dead flies off them. Or of the things that get smashed when guys are thrown through them in the fight scenes in movies.
Not really very trendy, sexy connotations. You need a more in-your-face word, one that plays up the intellectual level of its supporters, as part of some kind of club that is highly select, yet that anyone can join.
I propose "Dimdows".
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | January 11, 2008 2:53 AM
as long as XP does the job, and it's doing it well, there's no need for another operating system from Microsoft. i wouldn't upgrade right now even if vista was free. (why go through all the trouble when i have everything i need on XP?)
Regarding the Windows brand, it's so strong, that most people think of Microsoft when they hear the word not about panes of glass!
Posted by Jan Lukacs | January 11, 2008 7:54 AM
This particular quote:
The blogosphere has been particularly unkind about Vista features and performance.
No. Wrong. *everyone* aside from you thinks VIsta sucks. Everyone. Not just bloggers. IT managers, consultants, helpdesk, end-users, gamers.
I'm sure there's a yet-undiscovered tribe deep in some jungle that probably thnks Vista sucks.
So now they're burying the brand name, and reverting to windows.
But without coming out with a new version of 'Windows' in a year or so, it'll just shift to 'Windows Sucks' wont it?
Smells like damage limitation, and not very smart damage limitation at that.
---* Bill
Posted by Bill Buchan | January 11, 2008 9:09 AM
Vista had several critical flaws when it shipped. Last year, I ordered a new laptop from Dell with Vista Business on it (Vostro 1500, 3 GB memory, dual core). When I found out that SQL Server 2005 would not run on Vista without some sort of update, I canceled my order and re-ordered a new XP Pro laptop from Dell. Why go through the hassle? Aside from all the other problems that has been reported with Vista, I decided that I did not want to take the chance and get burned again by Microsoft. It is painful to spend hundreds of dollars on a new product only to see that it does not perform the way it was marketed to perform.
Posted by JM | January 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Vista performance is horrible - if you looked at those trying to demonstrate speed e.g. where gaming systems were being shown off - they were running Windows XP. Not because those games won't run on Vista - just they don't run well. These are games that have been out for a while as well as new games.
Vista performance in both graphics and file transfer, access, copies, moves, network thoughput are just plain deplorable. I agree Vista is damaged goods and the sooner MS either says - yeah Vista is Windows ME - we are washing our hands of the OS, the developers who created this atrocity and the managers who let it continue - the sooner MS can help boost their now horrible reputation. There will always be MS haters but with Vista and Exchange 2007 pre SP1 - they have plenty of reason.
Exchange 2007 was salvagable - Vista is not. Exchange 2007 was missing administration GUI features which could be added in - Vista performance is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed or patched - Hopefully they will start with performance with Windows XP 2009 edition and never ever make this mistake with another OS.
Posted by boe | January 11, 2008 11:05 AM
I am more convinced than ever that there is an agenda behind this blog because my comments previously weren't published.
As for Vista performance being horrible: The comments being made may be true if you haven't applied hotfixes. Every operating system including Mac OS X has operating system updates.
Most everything mentioned that had problems here in the comments are fixed through HOTFIXES..
For everything from: graphics and file transfer, access, copies, moves, network thoughput
Go to support.microsoft.com and you'll notice fixes in every category.
Posted by Don Burnett | January 11, 2008 12:07 PM
Okay I get it now, if you reply with a URL in the entry, your comments automatically get reviewed before publishing.
So my points if you want a very useable 64-bit or 32-bit Vista install go to support dot microsoft.com and download the HOTFIXES..
Most of them nicely fix the problems people are complaining about here. Most of them aren't on windows update at this point because they are still being tested. You can download them now however from support dot microsoft dot com.
These will be rolled up into a service pack soon. Either way, most of the things people complaining about can be fixed with a quick visit to support dot microsoft dot com.
Posted by Don Burnett | January 11, 2008 12:22 PM
I think that you have missed something, Vista is Ms' flagship and it is terribly bad-so bad that it gets us to FORGET that Ms is (and has been) doing everything wrong (such as a great pain makes us forget a smaller one).
When we hear Vista our perception of it is negative, same as when we hear Ms. Thus, are you telling us that when we hear Vista + Ms our perception will be positive? I have serious doubts about your point.
I believe that Ms and its analysts haven't got a real idea of the true problem because they pimply fall on the common mistake (1st grade psychology) of not being able to recognise that their attitudes have created an allergic reaction against them to the common user. And while they continue with that attitude, only an extraordinary product will maintain us as clients. In other words, we use it because we have to, not because we want to.
Posted by Marco | January 11, 2008 1:51 PM
Remember the code name for Windows 2000? It was: Windows 2000. Only time I know of that the code name ended up on the final product from MS.
I was just thinking... Perhaps Microsoft should go back to naming Windows versions by number, like Windows 3.1. That would allow them to focus the branding and attention on Windows. These cutesie names like Vista, XP, Me (Millenium Edition), cause people to focus on those names. Do you think ME would be as remembered for its failure if it had been called Windows 4.9? And today, there would be no big deal surrounding MS advertising Windows as opposed to Vista if it were Windows 6.
Now, if MS could just do with Windows 7 what they did with Windows 2000's code name... Make it stick.
Posted by Rich Gowran | January 11, 2008 2:01 PM
UK gov't report: Don't upgrade to Vista
Report warns British schools not to upgrade to Microsoft's Vista OS and Office 2007 suite, and to avoid Microsoft's OOXML document format because of compatibility concerns
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/11/Dont-upgrade-to-Vista_1.html
"We have not had sight of any evidence to support the argument that the costs of upgrading to Vista in educational establishments would be offset by appropriate benefit," it said.
The cost of upgrading Britain's schools to Vista would be £175 million ($350 million), around a third of which would go to Microsoft, the agency said. The rest would go on deployment costs, testing and hardware upgrades, it said.
In addition, it said, ODF file converters provided by Microsoft are not intuitive because they behave differently from the regular file save dialogs.
"We believe that these arrangements present sufficient technical difficulties for the majority of users to make them disinclined to use competitor products and this may weaken competition," the agency said.
--------
You see? it is NOT only about Vista.
Posted by Marco | January 11, 2008 2:02 PM
I recommend you read this.
----------------
Anything but Speechless: 100 Things People Are Really Saying About Windows Vista
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/12/anything_speechless_100_things_people_are_really_saying_about_windows_vista
Think we're being snarky and making that up? Nope. Let's listen in to 100 things people are really saying about Vista, shall we? (A warning: it gets rough in there...)
Posted by Marco | January 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Now what does that say about Vista, the brand, and Microsoft's commitment to Windows XP's successor?
If you had a crazy cousin that everyone in your family said was perfectly normal but you knew was out of her mind, would you want to advertise her?
This is especially the case when the family is already DNA deficient with such other losers like Xbox, Zune, WM, etc.
This plain fact is that MSFT has produced a numbing set of failures of which Vista is one of them.
It is time to replace the leader that produced these financial and operating disasters with someone who is capable of delivering products that work on tme and on budget.
If he ever had that capability, the jumping monkey has lost it; it is long past time for him to go.
Posted by Jeremy W | January 11, 2008 2:40 PM
"Windows Vista, Office 2007 Expelled From British Schools"
A British educational report suggests the upgrade would increase costs and create software compatibility problems while providing little benefit.
Posted by n0neXn0ne | January 11, 2008 5:17 PM
Mike, it is true that Longhorn was Vista's codename. As such Whistler was XP's. Yet I had to look up XP's in the wikipedia while Longhorn is fresh in my mind (as is in others). Not so much because it is newer. Rather because it is a symbol of Microsoft's terrible delay (6 years) in getting a new OS out the door.
Longhorn might be technically a codename, but it in the minds of many it was a brand name for a delayed OS. A brand that had to die a sudden death if Vista was to come out. And so it did. Overnight we stopped hearing all about Longhorn (except for the server edition) and it was all Vista. The key issue here is that we heard about the Vista change from Longhorn long before Vista's actual release. Longer than in XPs change from Whistler till its release.
I believe the important issue to understand from all this is the following. As consumers we can not let ourselves be decieved by these name changes and "name shoving to the back burner" and identify the product for its features ( or flaws ). Calling the Microsoft software stack Windows or Windows Live, will not change the flaws overnight. They will not go away and Microsoft's care for customer's needs will not arrive overnight either.
Posted by Gerardo Tasistro | January 13, 2008 2:19 PM
Perhaps you missed Microsoft's important news release on "Vista Lite Online:The Ultimate Computing Experience."
http://marketingbeyond.typepad.com/marketingbeyond/2008/01/microsoft-news.html
Posted by Brian Prows | January 13, 2008 10:22 PM
I guess it's pretty obvious by now: Vista is a flop and Micro$oft is backpedalling and trying to salvage what it can.
It was probably inevitable. Vista was so blaoted,s low, and incompatible with hardware and applications that it didn't stand a chance against XP. Not that XP was great either, but since Vista didn't offer any compelling reason for exsitying Windows users to shift, why should they bother?
Of course, there ARE good reasons for many existing Windows users to shift to OTHER operating systems, security, stability, and cost being some of these reasons. But this is perhaps where Micro$oft's deceptive marketing has actually had some success. Their FUD campaigns have actually managed to fool some people and frightened them away from Linux, BSD, etc.
Posted by Maddog | January 14, 2008 6:40 AM
Beyond the Vista mess, MSFT has some other marketing shortcomings that make me scratch my head. "Windows Live Hotmail" and "Windows Live Messenger"? Do you know *anyone* who calls those products by their full names? Aren't they just email and IM applications? And they work just fine on my Mac. (Yes, Mac Messenger is ancient, but you get the point.) MSFT is ham-handedly trying to shove the Windows brand into places that it doesn't need to go (and doesn't even fit), and it seems to me that people aren't biting. Am I missing the big picture?
Posted by Rob Cooper | January 14, 2008 10:48 AM
microslop deciding to create 5 or whatever it is different versions of vista didn't help matters either. how confusing can you get? I can see a corporate/enterprise and a home version, but that's about all you need. what ms should have done was just concentrate on xp particularly xp64 support. and for the love of god if they have any brains left there (balmer not included--he's pretty much a no-op figurehead), they will make dx10 available to xp and xp64. gamers are power users and they have been driving this market. being power users means they don't want to upgrade to yet another bloated os full of drm crap; they want to get all they have invested out of their hardware.
Posted by bad_vista | January 14, 2008 1:52 PM
" Jan Lukacs :
as long as XP does the job, and it's doing it well, there's no need for another operating system from Microsoft. i wouldn't upgrade right now even if vista was free. (why go through all the trouble when i have everything i need on XP?)
Regarding the Windows brand, it's so strong, that most people think of Microsoft when they hear the word not about panes of glass!"
Exactly well said. They should have just concentrated on XP64 and pushing support for that since most people were/still are on xp/32. And obviously the choice to make dx10 available to only vista is a poor attempt to push vista (was this balmer's idea? hmm). They created numerous versions of their dx api since windows 95, so there is no reason to not have it available on the OS that most users already had and what was the most stable.
Posted by bad_vista | January 14, 2008 2:07 PM