Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft PR: Looking Under The Hood
mtr writes "An interesting article uncovering some embarassing and amusing PR practices of our friendly software giant had been recently published by Michael Zalewski. The author recovered change tracking information from all the DOCs published on microsoft.com, and came up with something to cheer you up. It's funny when it happens to others - but even better if it fires back on themselves.
Read the full story here."
Don't you wish we had the same thing for White House internal memoranda?
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Now even Microsoft is in on the tired^H^H^H^H^Hclassic "^H" joke!
This makes me harken back to the days of yore...
Odd... that tool linked to in the article and again in the post, links to a tool that removes all traces of office from the operating system, it has nothing to do with tracking changes or removing them from documents.
did anyone else see that .cx address and have a slight moment of hesitation before clicking through?
From the article:
Call me paranoid, but all those "xxx, Chief Information Officer/Vice President at Avensis" quotes make it look as if they were fabricated prior to even figuring out who to talk to at the company, not to mention determining what his/her name would be.
Could it be that the Author of the memo heard a taped recording of the comments, and transcribed them without knowing the guy's name, thus leaving placeholders?
I don't think that even M$FT would stoop so low as to intentionally misquote someone. They'd never get away with it.
wbs.
Huh?
Between Microsofts marketing attempts - Windows ME, the BSOD on stage, the DOCs with changes in them that insult users or other companties - it almost seems like Microsoft marketing is trying not to sell to users.
It would be fantastic to find out that MS is actually some kind of joke gone wrong. Like,
"Hey, lets make a really bad operating system and see what happens."
"Holy cow, they are buying it!"
"Man, thats insane, lets make another one and see if they still fall for it."
"Jesys, can't these people learn? I know, lets hype up something that doesnt exist and then not bother releasing it."
"Woah, demand is so high we can afford to pay for it to be made."
"Why not, but insert some easter eggs that make it crash. That should let them realise it's all a big farce."
Beep beep.
I have had Rackspace do the same thing when I worked for a company that was a major Rackspace customer. Their PR team provided some quotes and the CEO of our company picked the ones he liked and attached his name to them.
It happens all the time.
Google Cache
Micrsoft releases final drafts onto the web... but WAIT! we can see their ROUGH DRAFTS TOO!!! I'm sorry, but there wasn't anything embarrassing about any of that. It's not like Bill Gates himself or anyone high up in the company is the one who initially wrote those documents. And besides, they were corrected... so i don't get it... who cares? this is not news. (anyone want to see the rough draft to my english paper!?!? it's HORRIBLE! how embarrassing!)
The program he used is called wvWare, obviously a handy little tool. He also gives links to some documents that supposedly yield interesting results. They are reproduced here:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
So get cracking and have fun!
wow... If microsoft can write a piece of software to remove one of their own programs, they could effortlessly write the world's most effective virus removal tool...
Some of the conclusions are dubious. Most of this looks like fairly standard business practices.
For example xxxx CEO of blah said yyyy
may simply be the result of the employee drawing up the report not knowing the full name or title of the person who made the statement.
As for exact facts and figures about a customer being included, this looks like they got asked not to include them, or decided against it, and complied.
Where's the story here? There's plenty of more interesting things that go on. This is just pure MS bashing. Bashing any company you dislike for genuinely bad business practices this way is a fantastic way to come across as a lunatic with a chip on your shoulder, but not a good way to be taken seriously when pointing out a company's flaws.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
One of the examples in the article was was:
"Home Depot: evaluated both, chose Windows for 8,200 Windows desktops, 42,000 Windows embedded for POS devices,... "
Several devices that I have bought at Home Depot have been a POS, but I wsn't aware Windows was embedded in them. Is windows in every POS that Home Depot sells or just certain items?
I guess Microsft thinks its better to ignore the problem than solve it, if the solution is not yours. What's the worst that could happen? ;)
I can't keep giving it away. You know, it doesn't grow on trees, and the free ride is over man. I can hook you up, but it's gonna cost $699 a hit...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
All Microsoft DOC files at Microsoft.com
Over 22,000 word files on their site. Assuming they are all still there, that is a lot of cleaning up to do. I wonder what else people will find.
Perhaps more Microsoft employees should Check this link out
This isn't journalism, this is a press release -- professional marketing people _always_ write quotes for people to "say" because they know what they want said. I don't know how many times marketing people have written quotes to attribute to me. They review it with the person they're "quoting" to make sure that it's OK, of course. So all we're seeing here is normal press release editing -- the marketing person comes up with something gushing and a rough idea of who ought to "say" it, and in the editing process it turns into an actual person saying something more reasonable. So while it's a certainly a bit embarassing seeing internal comments released to the public, there's nothing shocking or incriminating here.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
In May of 1995, I was shocked and surprised to read in Byte Magazine about how Penn State University had saved so much money and had such a massive increase in reliability by switching all of their network resources over to Windows NT. I was so surprised, because I read about it while waiting for a computer in the most advanced student lab at the time, and I saw not hide nor hair of Windows NT.
The Byte article quoted CAC higher-ups about how NT greatly improved security, file and print serving, and that all student labs had switched over wholesale. At this time, the file serving was handled by a Banyan Vines network, and printing being spooled by old Mac SE/30's.
By that fall, Windows NT was finally introduced to the labs, and the nightmare of having 100% BSOD boxes and useless labs had begun. When I graduated in the fall of 1996, printing was still handled by Macs, but usually PowerMac 6100's by that point. NT had lost all credibility at Penn State, and Microsoft had used them to hoodwink many large organizations with a totally fallacious article in Byte.
-- Len
I detest MS both for its business practices and products, but this is one instance in which bashing them is just plain ignorant.
I looked at the all the samples in the first page of the story, and I have to say that I didn't see anything that didn't look like normal editing decisions being made by writers and editors in the PR business. I was a newspaper journalist for years and I'm a political consultant now. I've received and written tons of news releases over the years. Unless there is some horrid "smoking gun" hidden on one of the interior pages, there is nothing sinister or unusual in the least about what the guy found.
What I saw looked more like examples from a PR writing textbook about how things are changed to reflect an editor's preferences to soften a story or to change its focus. Quotes are almost ALWAYS written by PR people and then approved by the person being quoted. In some cases, the quote is used as is. In others, the person will say that he prefers to say something different. The quotes as written give everyone an idea of the TYPE of quote needed for a certain spot in order to fall into line with the rest of the piece.
Ultimately, this is no different than anything else which is written and then changed along the way. New information comes along. There are differences in opinion about how something should be "spun." Editors use judgment about what will work best. A ton of things happen, but that is normal.
As I said, I can't stand MS and I think the company is blatantly dishonest in many of its practices, but these seem to be reasonably innocent examples of PR people attempting to do their jobs. If you understand how PR works, you will know that there is nothing unusual here.
Once I know I need to write a news release, I work out a plan. This includes goals, target audiences, media tools, means of measurement, key messages and key sources. If I need to involve external sources (the people I quote), I ask those companies for their consent to write a release. Depending on the relationship, they may send me the quotes *or* I might write quotes for them and have them approve them later.
It's often the last minute before the other company's senior execs, marketing staff, PR agency, lawyers, clients, or other stakeholders decide who they'll let me quote. They may have long debates over whether they want their quote attributed to the CEO, VP, client, Martian Sales Director, General Manager for Neptune, etc. It all depends on how they want to position their own quotes. And that's assuming they even wrote them. Whenenver I've had to deal with Microsoft, they've taken a week or more to approve a news release.
Virtually the same scenario takes place at my end. Various stakeholders provide input, and both the quotes and the sources (e.g. CIO) can change.
In my experience, anyone who ends up being quoted has to sign off on the quote. There are review processes. It's not like those people weren't involved.
When a CEO or other exec has a "real" interview with the press, the CEO reads from notes and statements that a marketer wrote. Before the interview starts, a marketer goes over all the notes and helps suggest possible questions and answers. The marketer sits in on the interview and (if cameras aren't present or it's over the phone) may help the exec piece together answers. Everything is heavily scripted. Eventually, the execs know the words by heart, or pretty close.
You can compare this process to the one used for professional speech writing, memos, letters, ghostwritten articles, and briefing notes. In fact, when I was just a co-op student, I was writing briefing notes, "question period responses", and other materials for the Canadian Minister of Immigration. Whether in a corporate or goverment environment, spokespersons rarely speak off the cuff. Except for Dan Quayle.
And, while I'm sure some people are horrified by the process, it has many advantages. Messages are consistent. Speakers/sources are handpicked for credibility, ability to talk, and relevance. All the messages have been pre-screened by legal teams, reducing risk. It's less likely that the exec will over-commit us, say something incorrect about a feature/benefit, or go off-topic. And the investment in marketing is maximized. And that's good for the company.
-- SYS 64738 --