I missed this old column from the New York Times in which technology writer David Pogue takes Microsoft to task for manipulating, and sometimes fabricating, good reviews for its products. I post it here because it ties into the TMO's efforts to create good PR. It seems that no matter how big and powerful one is, one still craves legitimacy in the eyes of others, even at the ultimage expense of legitimacy upon getting caught.
In one of Patrick O'Brien's seafaring stories, the character Steven Maturin reflects on Napolean Bonaparte's machinations to make some decree look as if it was really coming from the people. I can't remember what Bonaparte was doing, but Steven's aside to himself stuck with me. He wondered why dictators always seem to crave legitimacy. Indeed. >From the Desk of David Pogue A Wake-Up Call to Microsoft's PR Team By DAVID POGUE Published: January 25, 2007 >From the January 1, 2007, edition of The New York Times: The Times's technology columnist, David Pogue, keeps you on top of the industry in his free, weekly email newsletter. "Several bloggers reported last week that they had received Acer Ferrari laptops, which can sell for more than $2,200, from Microsoft. A spokeswoman for Microsoft confirmed on Friday that the company had sent out about 90 computers to bloggers who write about technology and other subjects" that could be affected by the release of Windows Vista, Microsoft's new operating system. "Being provided an evaluation computer from Acer is not a 'bribe,'" argued blogger Blake Handler, after receiving one of the free laptops. "It simply allows me to accelerate my evaluations, documentation and demonstrations of Windows Vista." OMG! You've got to be kidding me, Blake. I guess just being *lent* a laptop wouldn't have been enough to accelerate your evaluations? I guess only being given a freebie from Microsoft would do the trick. Now, I realize it must be hard to send a shiny new laptop back to the mother ship just because it's the right thing to do. Still, I think very little of the bloggers who are keeping Microsoft's bribe laptops. Clearly, they're exploiting the lawless, Brave New World of the blogsophere, where, since they're Not Quite Journalists, they don't feel constrained by any of those pesky journalistic ethics guidelines. Like the one that says, "You don't keep $2,200 gifts from the subject of your review. You might think you can still write an impartial review, but it's highly unlikely-and either way, nobody will believe it." But Microsoft gets much of the blame, too. It deliberately exploited a weak spot in today's court of public opinion: how bloggers influence consumers, but generally don't have conflict-of-interest policies. Now, I realize that this isn't exactly breaking news; in fact, it's three weeks old. I wasn't even going to bring it up, but yesterday I remembered something: this isn't the first time. In fact, Microsoft has tried to buy public opinion in secret over and over again in the last few years. Here are a few examples-mainly, the ones where Microsoft was caught: In 1998, the Los Angeles Times reported that Microsoft, during its antitrust trials, hired PR companies to flood newspapers with fake letters of support, bearing ordinary individuals' names but actually written by Microsoft PR staff. Later, during the antitrust trials, Microsoft attempted to prove the inseparability of Windows and Internet Explorer by playing a video for the judge. But the government's lawyer noticed that as the tape rolled on, the number of icons on the desktop kept changing. Microsoft had spliced together footage from different computers to make its point. Then in 2002, Microsoft's Web site featured a testimonial called "Confessions of a Mac to PC Convert," a first-person account by an attractive brunette "freelance writer" about how she had fallen in love with Windows XP. Unfortunately, a Slashdot member discovered that the identical photo was available for rent from the stock-photo libraries of GettyImages.com. Sure enough: Microsoft had hired a PR firm to write the testimonial. The "switcher" did not actually exist. I am not, and never will be, a knee-jerk Microsoft basher. I'll give its products good reviews whenever they're deserved (as I have with, for example, Media Center, Windows Vista and Office 2007). But for goodness' sake: Why is Microsoft so insecure? Why can't it allow its software to stand on its own? Why does it feel the necessity to spin public opinion using these phony "grass-roots" marketing tactics? Here's a wake-up call to the Machiavellis on Microsoft's PR team: bribing bloggers, fabricating reviews and making up letters to the editor makes the company look worse, not better. If Microsoft really wants to earn high marks from the public, it might want to consider earning them the old-fashioned way: By creating products people love. David Pogue in the New York Times
