Microsoft may Sanction the 'Switcher' PR-Rep

Nerull sent in a snippit from The Age saying "Microsoft may consider sanctions against a public relations consultant who tried to pass herself off as someone who had switched from the Apple Mac to Windows XP in a high-profile US advertising campaign, chief executive Steve Ballmer said today." Here is Monday's Slashdot Story that this follows up to. Lots of amusing little quotes about what it means to be trustworthy.

Comments

For the money M$ must be throwing her way:

[viper21]

Who wouldn't 'Switch'?

But this 'action' begs the question. Are they going to act on the other 'testimonials' that are prefaced with stock photo images?

-S

Some perspective...

[dr00g911]

I come from an advertising & PR background with several small to medium sized agencies.

First off: I'd wager that 90% of the testimonials you see in advertising are manufactured by the agency using their own employees. I've done it, and just about everyone I've known in the business at smaller agencies have done it. We also lend our voices to TV/Radio spots on occasion, and also appear in photo shoots from time to time when the budget or deadline are too tight to solicit (read: pay) professionals/real people.

Secondly: This is always done with the client's complete knowledge.

MS is playing a big game of CYA right now, and the agency is falling on their sword and taking the blame. That's how it works.

Their little stunt backfired on them, so they're spinning the blame to the PR/ad agency.

This sort of thing goes on every day, although not usually as high profile (or embarassing) as this particular case, which delights me to no end.

MS has been steal^H^H^H^H^H emulating Apple for how many years now? And they still can't get it right. Betcha 'ol Steve is laughing his turtlenecked ass off about this one, not to mention the folks at Chiat Day (Apple's agency).

Still Spinning

[dcollins]

...a public relations consultant who tried to pass herself off as someone who had switched from the Apple Mac to Windows XP...

As a former political activist (who's seen at least one scandal occur close-up), it was immediately obvious to me from the original story that this, too, is a total crock. There's no way that this PR consultant was at any point intending to use herself as an example. Here's what had to be the case:

(1) PR consultant is directed to write a series of fictional "counter-switch" case studies.
(2) PR consultant's name gets recovered from the MS documents sloppily put on the web,
(3) The name is tracked down to the PR firm itself, and questions are asked as to the possible fictition of counter-switch examples,
(4) So the PR consultant in question is directed to take the hit for the company, and claim that the example is not fictional, it's her. Hogwash.

I'd challenge MS and/or the PR firm to prove that this writer/consultant in any way resembles the figure in the case study. I bet she doesn't look anything like that stock photo, nor would any of her personal information match up with the story, if forced out of them.

The case study is just total fiction and this chick wrote it, is all. Now she's jumped on the sword to mask that fact. I've seen practically the same thing happen at a place I worked before.

Those damn PR people

[LoRider]

This person is a patsy. Microsoft breeds this sort of shit with the culture it promotes internally. I know this because my wife worked there for 3 years. They don't care if someone does this sort of thing, they only care that they got caught.

It's the same way the approach secure software. They don't care if it's actually secure, they only care that no one finds the security problems. That's why they get pissed when people find holes in their software. "Well it wouldn't be a problem if someone didn't find out about it, now would it?"

That, and many other reasons, is why they will never open the source on their software. They know there code will not stand up to scrutiny and it wasn't designed to do so either. They make things to make money - period. Now I know some of you idiots out there are going to say, "Of course, Microsoft is a business that's why all businesses make software." My rebuttal is yes software companies make software to make money. However, there is this little thing called professionalism. It's where you do things for your profession because it's the right thing to do. Like when lawyers take cases pro bono or doctors help someone on the street who just got hit by a car. Software should be looked at the same way. You make software secure and reliable because it's your profession and your company should encourage you to do so. Microsoft does not encourage it's programmers to write quality code - it's not part of their culture. I am off topic now so I shall bid you farewell.

Sorry for going off, but the 3 years my wife worked at MS were some really difficult times and we love it now that she's free. It really is a horrible place to work, it's really fucked up.

Stock art for real people? No way

[Ethelred Unraed]

At my first job, with a company of 7 people, we assumed that when the ad agency did our web site they would be taking pictures of us- especially because the founders considered themselves quite good-looking. But the ad agency used stock photos- they said they ALWAYS used stock photos, and seemed surprised that we thought we'd be photographed. They may have used the stock photo because the day they decided to do it, the PR rep had spilled coffee on herself, or for any number of other minor reasons. It's SOP for an ad company.

I used to work in a couple of marketing/design agencies, and still work self-employed in design and marketing. I'd say it is highly unusual to use stock art to represent real people, especially if the people involved are officers of the company -- after all, corporate partners are most likely going to meet these people eventually, so it would make a strange impression on visitors to see that the people don't look like that at all.

I really wonder what your old employer's agency was thinking (smoking?). Using stock art for testimonials is already questionable (people these days are cynical and intelligent enough to notice the difference), using stock art to represent employees and officers is downright stupid.

This is, by the way, why the Apple Switch ads are so effective. The people look believable (especially Ellen Feiss ;-) ) mainly because they aren't rehearsed, look "average" and so on. As a result, they are more likely to be listened to that some celebrity or photo model. Maybe they are faked, but if so, it's a hell of a good fake.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Apple's "switch" ads are suspect...

[Redwing]

Thanks for the great link. I'm just going to jump in to clarify some points you made...

They were allowed to interview two of them, but only with an Apple representative present.

According to the article, US News talked to three switchers, one without any Apple representative.

Furthermore, all of the Apple switchers were paid for their involvement. Who wouldn't switch if they were given a free Powerbook + expenses?

US News says one of the switchers says he was paid.

...or work for magazines which receive large amounts of Apple advertising, etc.

The magazine is the New Yorker. The amount of advertising is never mentioned. What USNews and this poster also fail to examine is whether the New Yorker prints ads for Apple competitors. Although I don't know, I can probably assume this safely.

It's just kind of interesting. Microsoft's advertising tactics have never been as unethical as what Apple has been doing with the switch campaign, and yet who bears the brunt of the attacks here?

I think the main difference here is that there is evidence that the Windows switcher works for Microsoft indirectly. I think anyone who appears in commercials should get paid for their time and effort, but the Mallinson woman was on the payroll for another reason entirely.