We were among those who were quite surprised that Microsoft gave into the online criticism of its "buddy" ads starring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates. As we noted, the ads were getting a ton of people talking, and set up plenty of opportunities to later plug Microsoft products. But, initially, they were just entertaining (if slightly awkward) content that did a good job bringing in viewers. Instead, Microsoft replaced it with the somewhat boring "I'm A PC" spots, that directly respond to Apple's "PC vs. Mac" ads. While the original critics claimed that these new ads were a lot more effective, I'd disagree. They're somewhat boring and what you'd expect. They're easy to tune out. And it appears that lots of people agree. A quick analysis has shown that the Gates-Seinfeld ads received many, many, many more online views than the new campaign. Obviously, that's not the only metric to use in measuring success, but it certainly suggests that Microsoft may have overreacted in pulling the plug so quickly.

I recognize that I was in the minority of folks who actually thought the Microsoft Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ads were good and entertaining, but I'm still quite surprised to see Valleywag report that Microsoft is ending the Seinfeld ads, despite plans for a huge $300 million ad campaign around them. Microsoft is trying to claim that this is all according to plan, but that seems difficult to believe -- especially since the "narrative" of the ads had only just begun. It looks like Microsoft basically caved to all the online critics, which makes no sense to me. Even if some people didn't get the ads, people were talking about them. Caving, rather than going through with the rest of the planned ads and laying out the message that they had planned to lay out, just makes the company look foolish. The first two ad segments clearly set the framework for numerous commercials that Microsoft could use to both humanize itself and inform people about what Microsoft was doing -- and now it's basically a dead end. Yes, there were some very vocal critics of the ads, but bowing to their pressure sends exactly the wrong message.

It's no secret that the MPAA's highly secretive rating process doesn't make very much sense. Kevin Smith, the well known director (and sometimes actor) got some press recently when he convinced the MPAA to change its initial rating of his new movie, Zack and Miri Make a Porno from an NC-17 to an R. There was also some buzz online about the MPAA's odd rejection of a movie poster for the film that seems pretty harmless. However, perhaps much more interesting is the information hidden at the bottom of a Salon.com interview with Smith about the whole ratings process, where Smith notes that he was surprised to find out that the MPAA now claims authority over not just posters, but any online ads for the movie as well -- even if they don't even include any footage from the movie:

I put up a teaser trailer [for "Zack and Miri"] back in April that had no footage from the actual movie in it. Just Seth and Elizabeth riffing. And the MPAA made us take it down. They said, "Look, we're in charge of all marketing materials as well, and we didn't approve this." So they made us take it down.

The MPAA's job is to rate the movies, not the ads for the movies -- especially when they're appearing online. But since the whole thing is "voluntary" (and secretive) and no theater will show a film without an MPAA rating, basically filmmakers are forced to play ball with the MPAA's regulatory whims. And, those whims can be really bizarre sometimes. Remember the movie poster that wasn't approved because a gun was aimed directly outward (and, the MPAA effectively argued, some people might think it will shoot them).

And it may get even worse. While Smith doesn't seem too worked up about the whole thing (or, rather, he's not worked up at all), he also wonders, as an aside, if the MPAA will also start regulating DVD extras. In noting that, these days, any content that the MPAA requires people to cut, will eventually make it onto the DVD anyway, he sort of wonders if the MPAA is going to expand its purview over DVD content also -- which is where he brings up the issue of the MPAA claiming control over movie trailers.

India unfortunately doesn't have the equivalent of section 230 of the CDA, which prevents service providers from being sued for the actions of their users. That's why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are all facing a lawsuit over certain types of ads in India. Apparently it's illegal in India to advertise any technique or product designed to influence the sex of a child. However, such ads have been appearing on all three sites. The problem, though, is that the liability should be on those who are actually buying the advertising. They're the parties who are really breaking the law. Yet, because Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are easier targets (and have a lot more money), that's who gets targeted.

Apparently the MPAA is quite worried that people watching a movie trailer might not understand that a gun pointed at the screen can't actually shoot through the screen. The organization is forcing preview trailers that show someone pointing a gun directly at the screen to actually change the video or cut that scene out of the ad. As the report at the AV Club asks, is the MPAA worried that someone from a century ago who's never seen TV or a movie is going to suddenly show up and freak out? Anyone who's seen the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated knows that the MPAA works in mysterious ways, but this just seems ridiculous.

News.com points out that Google is planning to measure the time it takes to load the target pages for its ads, and penalize ads that point to slow-loading pages in AdWords auctions. Ads that point to websites that pop right up will be ranked above those that load like molasses. I think this is not only a great idea, but a good illustration of why Google has been so successful in recent years. As we've noted before, one of Google's great strengths has been its relentless focus on improving the user experience, even when doing so might not help the bottom line in the short run. One of the ways Google does this with its ads is by prioritizing relevance over cost-per-click: Google shows you the ads it thinks you're likely to click on before the ones with the highest bids.

The payoff for Google is that over time, people begin to subconsciously associate the Google brand with a fast, clean, efficient user experience. Most user don't specifically notice that Google's ads are more relevant or its pages load a half-second faster. They just begin to feel that Google sites are generally less annoying than other sites. An extreme example of the opposite phenomenon is About.com, which I've learned to avoid it like the plague (despite the fact that it often has relevant information) because every time I click on an About page my screen seems to fill up with pop-up ads. Another example is mainstream sites like Forbes and Salon that make you watch a full-page ad before they'll show you the content you asked for. These policies goose revenues in the very short term, but at the expense of making it less likely that users will come back in the future. In contrast, by giving preference to advertisers with quick-loading websites, Google will be ensuring that users who click on ads find the experience as painless as possible -- and therefore, more likely to click on ads in the future.

Forget collective bargaining or a sitdown strike, it appears that Britain's largest private-sector union is engaging in... well... buying some Google ads in protest. The Times Online tries to make this out to be an alternative to a strike or a walkout, and even implies that buying a few Adwords on Google to show their displeasure with the retailer Marks & Spencer would have a similar impact. It's difficult to see why buying some ads on the Marks & Spencer ad is going to have much of an impact at all on any negotiations with the union. The article is actually fairly weak -- not explaining clearly that the union is just buying ads that anyone could buy. It makes it sound as if the union is doing something special to have its complaints seen on Google. It also doesn't mention that M&S could just outbid the union to get a higher ranking in the ads and to explain its side of the story. It is nice that the group is trying alternative means to get its point across, but it hardly seems worth comparing it to a strike, as the article implies.

By now, most newspapers have recognized that they need an online strategy -- even if many are struggling to realize that this means a lot more than just throwing their news articles online. Case in point: even once they're online, most newspapers still make you go through the process of talking to a human and signing a deal before you can advertise on their website. This, despite the fact that so many other online-only properties now have a nearly totally automated process for advertisers to sign up, upload (or create) creatives, and have the advertisements go live. Newspapers need to realize that going online isn't just about the medium, but taking advantage of what that medium allows.