Under the Microscope marketingcomputers.com
Subtitle: The king of software confronts its bad reputation.
That subtitle is one of those duality of man things, everybody who likes Microsoft thinks everything that gives Microsoft a bad reputation is good. Anyway, this is a long and detailed article, both sides and all that. It goes through most of the last 6 months, from the famous raised middle finger defense to the Senate hearings, though it leaves out Ballmer's famous "To heck with Janet Reno". Note the source for the marketing advocates around here.
This is hardly the first time DOJ has come down on Microsoft, and the charges themselves aren't the most serious the company has faced. But this time Redmond sparked a media firestorm by asserting that removing Internet Explorer from Windows 95 would cripple OS functionality-a claim that violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the court order and insulted the court and the Justice Department.
The confrontation revealed a staggering degree of arrogance, inciting an attack of the PC pundits. While some observers contend that no amount of ire from the media will affect the strength of Microsoft's relationships with its customers-i.e., as long as the company keeps doing what it has been doing, it will be fine-media rants do add fuel to the fire of politically motivated Microsoft attackers. "What amazes me is that you have decided not just to disagree with the U.S. but to give it the finger, to embarrass and demean the individuals leading the government's efforts," wrote Fortune columnist Stewart Alsop in an open letter to Bill Gates. "Why would you intentionally piss off the world's most powerful entity? Why risk Microsoft's credibility with consumers?"
Within weeks of the embarrassing confrontation, the DOJ began looking to broaden its investigation. Meanwhile, 11 states have subpoenaed the company; Congress is looking into competitiveness in the industry and European and Japanese investigations are under way.
Couldn't happen to a nicer company, of course.
Microsoft's initial response to DOJ gave the general public its first taste of an aggressive personality that many industry types have been loving to hate for years. "The way they acted in court was consistent with the way they deal with other companies on a confrontational level, but it was for much of the public a revelation," says Dan Gillmor, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, pointing out that public figures like Ralph Nader could greatly amplify popular concern over Microsoft's behavior. "You can dismiss Nader if you want, but the average person knows who he is," Gillmor adds. "Your mother has heard of Ralph Nader. When he starts asking questions, she's going to want to know the answers."
Hearts and minds, which is mostly what I follow this stuff for. Personally, I've always expressed doubt that there would be effective antitrust action against Microsoft; for all the heat of the last few months, nothing substantial has happened yet. But, everybody should understand Microsoft. The story goes on about all the positive poll numbers everybody loves to quote here.
But the numbers aren't all good. Here's an ominous stat: People seem to favor the company less the more they know about technology.
All those darn technoweenies. They just don't understand the necessity of a proprietary lock, aka monopolistic death grip, in business.
In the same Fortune poll, more than half of computer users polled online agreed with the DOJ while only one-fourth sided with Microsoft. And in the magazine's survey of America's favorite businesses, Microsoft scored tops in talent and financial soundness, but 161st in corporate responsibility.
Of course, the Microphiles around here will assure you that corporate responsibility is oxymoronic, like business ethics. After all, it's unethical to be ethical in business. . .
Still more disturbing, corporate technologists-Microsoft's most important audience-appear most concerned about the company's power. An InformationWeek survey of 100 IT managers on Oct. 23 found that almost 70 percent agreed that the government should investigate Microsoft's business practices (just 41 percent had agreed earlier in the month, before the new allegations), and 62 percent felt Microsoft undermines consumer choice.
Which is in line with the Merril Lynch poll cited here more recently. Bill's got a fix for that, of course- go over the heads of the CIOs straight to the CEOs, let the top dog suits kick the technoweenie suits into line. Another one of those CEO shindigs coming up.
There's a lot more of note here, but I'm long already. Thrilling conclusion:
Marketers like to say that brand is the sum of a company's interaction with its customers. As long as Microsoft occupies its unique position in the industry, its brand will reflect more than that, though. It's time to see if a great company can also become a good company.
I'd agree with that, of course. At this point, it looks like there's not much interest in following that course. The PR-level kinder, gentler campaign still seems to be the favored course. Bill's a smart guy, but a good guy? We'll see.
Cheers, Dan. |
