We had months of advance warning. In fact, Fast Company gave the new Microsoft advertising firm, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the cover in its June issue and in as much detail allowable proclaimed of what was to come. Clearly the Tech media and blogoshere needed a little more time.
Its been three weeks since Microsoft’s salvo in response to Apple’s surging share of the U.S. consumer computer market. In those three weeks nearly all the Tech media has fallen over themselves to attack the Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld rendezvous series. Apparently only Mashable and Techdirt paused long enough to get the marketing brilliance we all just witnessed. Here is my comment on a recent TechCrunch post:
Since its launch, Microsoft’s new ad campaign has made a daily appearance in the national news cycle. They definitely have our attention. Earlier this week, it was uncovered that Microsoft was launching phase two of its campaign. Lets pause and consider this statement. When was the iterations of a advertising campaign national news? Ad Week and Ad Age will fold if this continues.
Most of the media felt Microsoft “cancelled” the Seinfeld ads because of the strong criticism, however their PR team was adamant that this was all part of the plan and Jerry may show up later in the campaign. I believe this is true, but it hardly matters. Microsoft PR in conjunction with Crispin Porter + Bogusky has become a Pied Piper of sorts and the Tech media is completely oblivious.
It has been uncool to like Microsoft for years and in that time the Tech media and blogoshere have mostly become Mac Fanboys. Microsoft is using this to their advantage. Undoubtedly there will be the expected criticism for the ”I’m a PC” campaign. Proof of this appeared this weekend when reports came out that part of the Microsoft campaign was built on a Mac. Funny, this is not news since nearly all ad agencies use Macs and Crispin Porter + Bogusky admitted to this in the previously mentioned Fast Company article. More still, the media will say it just copies the current Apple ads, but they would be wrong. Beyond making Apple look elitist, the campaign includes an intelligent and engaging interactive viral component.
This is quite possibly the most significant and impressive marketing campaign of this century, and nobody knows it beyond the marketing community. We have not even acknowledged what could be the most devastating blow of all. Apple is expected to announce its new line of Macs in about two weeks? Can Apple maintain its market share? Does Apple know how to take a hit and how will the company respond? It would be an utter failure if they continue on with their current Mac vs PC campaign. Lastly, Google should take note as Microsoft is agitating a similar storm in the antitrust courts that could cripple the search leader.
Cloud computing for the every day user is right around the corner. More than simply the next tech buzz word, companies are putting into motion business plans that address what is deemed the future of computing. Probably the most significant news came out of Camp Microsoft. The semi-mythical Midori has already received coverage this year as Microsoft’s future operating system that will replace Windows. Now even more intriguing, Midori is reported to be a cloud computing operating system. This is a bold yet necessary move, and finally Microsoft has beat Google to the punch. Google has discussed the browser as the future operating system. Surely it has plans to develop more than the programs and tools, but also a browser/OS as well. It is nice to know there is competition for a cloud OS considering all the issues surrounding Android.
One issue with the cloud routinely brought up is security. While there is not any good updates here, companies can now rely on Zscaler for web filtering through a cloud based service. I imagine this offering will have strong appeal because it relieves the burden of running filters and security on your own servers. AT&T also announced, though garbled, a complete end to end cloud solution dubbed Synaptic Hosting. The significance here is that AT&T will not only manage the services, but also the network it runs on, which gives the company greater control and presumably higher reliability.
Need more on the cloud, well BusinessWeek just released a special report titled the CEO Guide to Cloud Computing that provides a great deal more fodder to the discussion. Humorously, Dell decided it would try to trademark “cloud computing” and in completely unrelated news Delta decided to take cloud computing literally and the era of the tag cloud is on notice.
In the last couple weeks two top tier blogs, Lifehacker and ReadWriteWeb have posted stories on how Google’s beta Gmail not only competes with, but is better than Microsoft Outlook for business communication. Lifehacker’s post came out first and received a lot of attention, mainly because it was such a radical concept. It stuck with me though and I became perplexed when just two weeks later highly respected ReadWriteWeb proposed the same idea.
I believe all ideas have merit, but it is simply wrong to suggest Gmail has dethroned Microsoft’s Outlook and its Exchange service. I am not alone as the comments for both posts disarm and criticize the analysis or lack there of as one commenter suggests. In fact what both were really arguing was Gmail versus Outlook with Exchange, but for some reason ReadWriteWeb in a particular consistently focused on Outlook alone. Of course Outlook is not mobile, but Exchange is the most powerful mobile email service available. Hopefully this is just two misinformed Gmail fanboys stirring the pot, and not something more insidious like Google prepping for Gmail coming out of beta by engineering positive posts for the product’s business usability. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this all just comes off as way to coincidental. Perhaps I need not worry about the integrity of Google because how could one question a company that has “Don’t be evil” hanging on their wall.
While we still wait for proven online semantic search to emerge, Microsoft unveiled what could be a notable improvement to the current search environment. Last week a paper was released that introduced BrowseRank, a new method for determining Web page importance based on user behavior.
This method is in contrast to Google’s PageRank, which utilizes complex algorithms that look at the number and rank of sites that link to any given page to determine its search value. This method has driven Google to its current dominant status in search, but it can be gamed by link farms and other search engine optimization methods – impressively spawning the SEO industry.
BrowseRank measures the time users spend on pages and sites to calculate their search importance. This is even more brilliant than utilizing actual total and unique visitors to sites through intranet provider statistics.
I am encouraged and look forward to continued innovation in online search. Google has gone stale with a lack of competition and there is good reason to believe Microsoft’s plan to reinvent itself in the online world starts with reinventing how we use the internet – both through search and cloud computing. Microsoft is entering both areas a bit late, but its failed bid to purchase Yahoo may prove the internal motivational push it needed to start change within instead of the slow monolithic growth method of acquisition. No one can compete with Google within the confines of today’s current search arena, but unlike the numerous startups out there, Microsoft has the size and resolve to compete and move the search game to its next iteration. I suspect we will see a very different search environment before April of next year that will include BrowseRank, mobile search, CPA and maybe even semantic.
My work has recently provided me the chance to live in a Mac world…exclusively. I was excited about the opportunity because I have heard for years the greatness that is OSX and how Macs are significantly more secure (security by obscurity?) and provide a flawless computing experience. I jumped headlong into the Mac ocean…eh-em…pond I mean.
Understandably, I have been a daily Mac user for exactly four days. I may need a full month of usage to compile a fair revue, but I find my user experience lacking. Many have told me that moving around in the Mac environment is very intuitive and simple. I agree, but perhaps its too simple. I am very knowledgeable of Windows and its inner workings and thus far have found the OSX coming up short. There is a great post I happened on to today at Gizmodo that mirrors my thoughts and mild frustrations. As the post suggests, perhaps I am just too smart for Macs.
Probably my greatest complaint would be the functionality of programs beyond the browser. Lets get serious, trying to use Microsoft Office on a Mac is obnoxious compared to Windows. When I am working in Word, I want it to be the only thing in my screen and the text should be simple to read. Yes, I have learned the magic of the little green button, but it takes significantly more work to operate Office on a Mac. Simple…not so much. Also, one mouse button is great until you want to copy a link. Now I have to hit Control and the Mouse simultaneously. In Windows land I can copy thousands of links and paste them into a document without ever utilizing the keyboard. Trite? Perhaps, but this is not simpler.
My roommate has a solution for my MS Office woes. Its called Parallels. This virtualization software allows you to run OSX and XP at the same time (unlike Boot Camp). With Parallels, I can get flawless browsing and media experience, while creating documents in its native world. For this reason, I may still consider getting a Mac for home computing, but surely this option is not simpler. Additionally…No Microsoft Money for OSX and a Quicken program that is embarrassing. How do the Mac faithful budget?
Lastly, there was a recent mention on Buzz Out Loud about the Mac vs PC commercials and how Microsoft has yet to respond. The mention points to a great conversation on its message board about how this impacts the business of both companies. I however was surprised that there was zero mention of Microsoft’s plans to respond as laid out in the June 2008 issue of Fast Company. You can hear my response and their candor on episode 753. I think this makes me legit. I am officially a content provider for CNet.
Perhaps it is possible you were not aware Microsoft was attempting to acquire Yahoo. I would wager that this has been the number one story in the tech community since February and most suggested Yahoo would be foolish not sell. Some felt that the internet had passed by the company, while most purely view this as a financial story. Meaning take the fast money now instead of building and maintaining a pillar of the digital world.
I have been outspoken about the ignorant and short sighted view of nearly everyone in the media, however I became incensed with this highly questionable post on TechCrunch after Yahoo announced its partnership to outsource a portion of its search advertising to Google that effectively ended any potential deal with Microsoft. This motivated me to finally outline publicly why Yahoo made the best deal for the longevity and health of the company. I am also an active investor that is disgusted by those who seek short term profits versus decisions that will strengthen a company for the long term. Invest in a company you believe in and want to see succeed in business, not to cash in quick by stripping the company of all its assets. Here is my reply to the TechCrunch article:
Beginning of the end for Yahoo? It is beyond me why the media keeps suggesting Yahoo and Google are in the same business and that search is everything. Google does one thing well. The majority of their products are worthless. Yahoo is a content portal. It has the number one site for Finance and Sports (by traffic) and the top email. They also lead the industry in display advertising, which is significantly more important/useful for marketers. Search ads…seriously, who is really clicking on this. If Microsofts CPA model catches fire, advertisers will revolt against the fraudable CPC model of Google.
Surely Yahoo is going to only farm out the low profit search terms to Google to maximize revenue. Yahoo is using Google as a tool because thats all they are. Beyond all of that…why is there not more discussion on Google diversification. Everything it does that provides revenue is tied to search. Thats great when you have the best search, but there has been plenty of articles outlining how the industry can be improved and if Google cannot figure it out, the house of cards falls down.
Yahoo is fine. It hovers between the number one or two most visited site in the world. Unlike social networking sites, it also has a clear and viable way to monetize this traffic. One being display advertising, which Yahoo is the industry leader. Why would they sell to a company scrambling to find its place online that would only dissolve the Yahoo name in a few short years (much like the iconic Kinko’s that is now no more). I am not the only one who feels this way though as it looks like even Carl Icahn is warming up to an independent Yahoo. Moreover, Google is not going to eat Yahoo nor should this deal bring about antitrust concerns. Search is not the end all be all for the internet as TIm O’Reilly states and the two companies are not really competitors. Yahoo creates content. Google does not. Google is a tool, while Yahoo is a destination. Yahoo has interesting new products such as Yahoo Buzz (a Digg killer) and Go 3.0 and I expect the company to still be a thriving and relevant five years from now.
Last week Microsoft announced the launch of a new search advertising model that gives cash back for completed purchases. Live Search Cashback is an about-face to Google’s search advertising model that in my opinion provides more value to advertisers. Google search advertising is based on cost-per-click (CPC) where Live Search Cashback is cost-per-action(CPA). This means merchants only pay for an advertisement when it directly leads to a sale instead of merely interest (or accidental clicks).
I believe this would eradicate the click fraud issue with CPC. Moreover, surely the CPA fee charged by Microsoft is more than that of a Google’s CPC, which could provide more revenue to Microsoft once Live Search Cashback gains a foothold and it starts to retain some of the fee instead of handing it all to customers. Simply put, CPA makes more sense and I am all about innovating systems for greater usability and efficiency. While I dont think this alone will defeat Google, I do think it will push the industry toward more effective search and likely overall online advertising.
The Future of Search agrees and even looks at how Microsoft’s acquisition of Farecast could play a huge role. Results will crown the victor here and advertisers will determine whether quantity of clicks or quality wins out. Im betting on quality.
Microsoft PR…they may be on to something. In the second week of ’08 we may have campaign of the year – making Bill Gates a lovable Geek. Think Apple’s Mac Vs PC campaign is ingenious? You haven’t seen anything yet. Overall Gate’s keynote at CES 2008 was regarded as strong, but its the video accompanying the presentation that is snagging the blogoshere headlines.
The video features Gates’ last day at the office, in which he works out with Matthew McConaughey, tries to impress Bono with his “Guitar Hero” chops, tests Jay-Z’s patience with his rap skills and lobbies to land the VP spot on the Democratic ticket.
This is a great example about how you must be bold to create an endearing and viral campaign in today’s critical online environment. If Microsoft only went half way…this never would have worked and they would look completely foolish for it.
You can view a segment of the video here. Full version here.
secure (security by obscurity?) and provide a flawless computing experience. I jumped headlong into the Mac ocean…eh-em…pond I mean.
Perhaps it is possible you were not aware 
Last week Microsoft 
