Microsoft’s Tongue-Tied Approach Resembles Something….

Whistle while you wor...no. We’re off to see the Wiza… closer. A Ha! If I only had a brain! That’s the one.

Ever since I’ve heard about Microsoft’s failed bid to take over Yahoo!, I can’t get it out of my head. Why you ask? Because as we hear time and time again, that public perception is key. And, right now, MS doesn’t have the best perception and they’re doing nothing to change it.

MS pushed for Y! and today we hear about Facebook talks, so there has to be a reason that the Redmond company wants to buy a larger chunk of the Internet and has been so secretive with growth strategies. The only conclusion I can come up with is because it’s feeling the crunch of the advertising bug and Web publishing failures.

Years ago, the company launched the “beloved” MSN.com, which has subsequently become the #3 player in the search market (as almost everyone has abandoned the preset IE homepage for their own favorite Web site). It has an existing social networking platform which only has minimal adoption. It also seems more advertisers aren’t using any company’s Internet properties to push their online marketing campaigns.

Now as they attempt to buy out other – more successful – sites (and face rejection), MS needs to take a new stance. Instead of being the 500 lb. gorilla that wants to bully competitors into selling, it needs to start a new chapter in external business and shareholder communications.

Humility.

If only the “Scarecrow” would recognize some short-comings and announce its strategy to be more competitive in the light of product failures, it might just be more easily swallowed. I’m not the company’s counsel, nor do I wish to have such a headache, but I do think that there is an easy way for MS to do better. It should put out releases, announcements and letters that have a humble tone, acknowledging the innovations from potential acquisitions, and how it would improve MS lines of business. Something like:

“…For many years, we have attempted to become a larger player on the Internet. However, we have yet to reach our full potential online. This includes our engagements in social networking. Facebook has developed the most cutting-edge platform for social networking, advertising and engaging individuals. As we strive to enhance our existing portfolio of products, services and destinations for the public, we hope to engage the current leaders in the space.. We look forward to conversations of how we can both improve our daily interactions; not only with computers, but with each other…”

This has been something missing as of late. Heck, it’s always been missing. But if MS wants to raise its image, shouldn’t it start with the character trait that has the most resonance?

I’ve said it before, but humility goes a long way. There’s no need to be an Oz character.

Networking to Pitch

I ran into a friend of mine at BusinessWire earlier today. She's always so chipper and told me about this great event she went to for networking. So, I asked more and she sent me a few links to Facebook groups that I promptly joined and offered my services as a speaker.

A few emails later, I got a question from one guy who wanted to know what my recommendation would be for small Internet startups for engaging and promoting their company at a networking event.

Well, it starts with the pitch. I don't mean just the basic I work for company X and we do Y. You need something with an edge that not only piques interest, but sparks deeper conversations. Web companies and well anyone who's pitching business need to be armed with what's called "issues and experts."

I like to look at PR differently than pushing a press release, news alert or earnings statements. Granted, press releases and news alerts are necessary. They have their function for launches, announcements and big deals. But when you want to get the word out in a larger feature you have to be proactive and know what's going on in the industry.

So, I follow a lot of trends. Twittering, Web 2.0, and new technology of course; but there are lot of other things I read.

Here's an example. One of our clients has created an amazing Web-based job search system that acts as a digital headhunter for you. Instead of Monster or CareerBuilder where you post a resume and let recruiters and bots find you, this system searches for jobs on your behalf based on resume fit, and lets you select if your private information is sent to recruiters (not robots). It's like having a personal recruiter and not having to weed through the keyword search results.

So we followed trends. We looked at the economy and worked up a story about how to "recession-proof" your resume. We saw major CEO's and celebrities losing their jobs, so we created profiles for them and showed what person X or Y could do next based on our searches. There was an angle that came out of bosses putting your resume into LinkedIn and Google and finding your resume; therefore, you need to "covertly" job search so the boss didn't know you were looking. After we created the issue, we positioned our executive as an expert in the topic.

Successful campaigns don't originate with putting out press releases and hoping for coverage. Everyone and all publications need some sort of larger angle to take the interview. When you go to a mixer, whether meeting with media or potential investors, set up your company with an issue and how you're the expert to fix it.

Yes, it's problem and solution. But more importantly, it's a relevant problem because you've been tracking the trend, and you've come up with the best solution. That's how you get the larger features instead of the first two paragraphs of your wired release.

Boradband or Big Steal?

Today, Comcast announced that it was opening access to their DOCSIS 3.0 pipeline to the Twin Cities, allowing for faster Internet connections at a much higher price tag. Consumers who want the increased bandwidth of up to 50Mps download and 5Mps upload, will have to shell out quite a penny to subscribe, as prices start at an alarming $149.95 a month.

Now, some of you might not think that this is a high price to pay. But what you don’t already know, is that in 2004, the FCC passed a measure, enabling our cable and telephone providers to upgrade our systems with fiber optics to within 500 feet of consumers’ homes, without jeopardizing existing lines. On top of the measure, the Federal government has provided a plan and millions of tax dollars in grants and loans to assist independent and large providers in upgrading their networks.

So what’s the problem?

Well, instead of upgrading the systems, the companies have stalled their installation plans and slowly changed the “trusty old copper” to fiber. Moreover, now that only certain markets have fiber lines, like the DOCSIS 3.0 connection, they will charge you enormous rates to access what they were mandated to provide!

I understand the thought that you have to charge by bandwidth allocations in old infrastructure networks. I understand that I get raped when I want a faster connection. But instead of pilfering my wallet for another buck, shouldn’t you be upgrading our existing services, or do you just want to stymie the US’s broadband access?

Pay for Play or a Headache in Disguise?

Recently, one of my clients was approached by an editor about a potential advertisement and story opportunity with his publication. After careful research about the publication and advertising budgets, my client declined to contribute for an ad placement, but suggested a news article.

Accordingly, we reached out to this editor on behalf of our client, and sold him on a story about my client’s innovative technology and the numerous applications to entertainment, medicine and a number of other uses. The editor even came back with several questions regarding the system specifications and wanted a quotation or two to complete his story.

Yet then at 1:37 a.m. EST, he sends the following nasty-gram to my clients:

{President of company}:

I've been thinking about {your innovative} systems. You said my magazine would be great fit for your products, which is why your pr agency has contacted me several times to publish a story. But I'm still unclear about a few things. It sounds like you want me to publish a story for my 38,000 readers about your products, but you have no intention of ever supporting this or any other magazine because you have no advertising budget. Is that your position? You want all of the benefits of my magazine and others, but you aren't willing to support them, right?

{Pissed off editor}

Whoa! Not so fast.

If we wanted to do an advertorial, we would have inquired about one when you first approached us. We were clear that we did not want to run an ad, and you were clear that there was a potential story opportunity. But now you’ve gone and attacked my client? Big mistake

This is exactly the type of publication we would NEVER want our clients associated with. One that only lends its credibility to the monthly advertising billings. Apparently you don’t have enough trust in your journalistic prowess, nor do you believe that compelling articles and fair reviews are what your audience wants. Instead, you think that building a “magazine” that is completely full-page ads is journalism that any company would want to be associated with.

I’m sorry, but pay-for-play is not our cup of tea. We believe that it completely devalues and discredits any story that might have run. I understand that you may have sales goals. But you should first and foremost have quality goals.

We don’t care if you need an ad now, we care about the quality of story that you might publish. If it’s a great run, we might reward you next month with an ad buy. But if you’re setting paradigms where coverage is only guaranteed or warranted by an advertising contract, adios.

A Call to Arms

By, Chris Michaels and Ben Baruch

Just do it – Mark Cuban – Dancing with the Stars?

No, we will not comment on these segments of pop culture, we'll leave that for Finnegan. We do, however, want to relay Paul Boutin’s message So You Want to Be a Blogging Star?” article in today's New York Times. A fellow colleague brought this piece to our attention in response to the ongoing battle of inspiring colleagues as bloggers. In his article, Boutin shows that anyone, even a billionaire CEO can make time to blog, so why can't we?

“Write about what you want to write about, in your own voice,” Boutin stresses. Fusion allows us, within bounds, to communicate freely with the outside world about our profession and our experiences. Mark Cuban later said in the article, “Blog about your passions. Don’t blog about what you think your audience wants.”

Blogging should be easy. We're passionate about our work and clients. We see and interact with the media all the time. We notice the trends that get picked up and what tips and tricks work best for us. So why not share that with the rest of the clan? Most of us communicate freely/hourly with our friends online through social media portals, why not allow this behavior to percolate into the company Blog.

What are the benefits you might ask? We step out of taking in hyper-technical jargon; we step outside of our buckets, focused on business and technology; but most importantly, we become advocates for our own experiences. The more we share about what's working or what we notice, the better we are as a whole. This is your chance to help your colleagues, even if it's just to point out an article you read recently.

In the adapted words of one of our favorite film characters, “If I can [blog], and you can [blog], we all can [blog].”

David Kirkpatrick points out, in the new issue of Fortune Magazine, “Web 2.0 Gets Over Its Goofing-Off Phase," that Web 2.0 and social media will be the prevailing information hubs and are here to stay. The transparent and accessible disposition will only benefit us professionally. So we ask, shouldn't we leap at this opportunity to educate ourselves about this fundamental medium and benefit from its cooperative nature?

An emphatic yes, we say.

Now, whose turn is it?