Not long after news broke that Microsoft had dumped Jerry Seinfield from the current $300 million Windows campaign, the New York Times reported that the second stage of the campaign would highlight everyday Windows users, such as Eva Longoria, Deepak Chopra and Pharrell Williams, sharing with the world how they love and use Microsoft products.

The new phase of the campaign will include a head on challenge to Apple’s Mac vs PC campaign, complete with a John Hodgman clone (pic top left) saying that he’s a PC and a stereotype, before the everyday people share their stories. Other everyday people to feature in the campaign include scientists, fashion designers and shark hunters, the sort of people average folk can relate to.

As I’ve said previously, I’ll hold back on my judgment until I see the ad, and it can’t be any worse that the first phase. At least this time there’s a message…sort of Marketing 101 for first year marketing students who don’t take crack.

Other experts are supporting the campaign:

“The initial reaction might be on the fence or leaning negative but the ad did its job,” says Dean Crutchfield, a brand consultant. “Most companies would have to spend a billion dollars on advertising to get this kind of attention.”

“The fact that they have the blogs, the business community and mass media talking about it means they hit a nerve,” says Allen Adamson, managing director of the New York office of Landor Associates, a corporate branding firm owned by WPP Group.

Now if this wasn’t a Microsoft commercial I’d agree with all those points: people are talking about the ad, it has created buzz, and the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity holds true. But we’re not talking about another company, we’re talking about Microsoft. A multi-billion dollar organization with 80-90% marketshare on computers, the default standard in office software, and a range of other things. You can’t go anywhere on the planet without running into something from Microsoft, and very few have never heard of the company, going to zero percent in the developed world.

This isn’t a company that needs buzz, that needs people talking about a zany ad that says nothing. Microsoft has brand awareness. What Microsoft needs to do is change people’s perception of the brand, to make people think positively about the company, and this ad fails to deliver.

Where was the key message? where was any message for that matter? Do people think more positively about Microsoft after the ad because Jerry Seinfield and Bill Gates like cheap shoes?

It is, as I’ve said previously, too clever by half. The fact that the Journal’s experts think that the ad is a huge hit proves the point, because there are times where the ad world has lost touch with reality. This ad resonates for all the wrong reasons, and the buzz doesn’t address the key messages Microsoft needs to deliver.

Will it yet deliver in follow up spots? Microsoft is betting that it is, and until we see the ads, we have no way of knowing. On the bright side, the campaign can only improve, but perhaps that’s the point I’m missing: perhaps it is suppose to start bad so that we see a transformation of Microsoft from the cheap shoes of Windows to something cooler and more desirable. We will see.