So, outgoing (as in leaving, not friendly) Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer fired off some parting shots while unveiling the new Bing logo and design during the company's financial analysts meeting, aimed primarily at Google. Unfortunately, despite the fact that he was addressing a very pertinent topic with a lot of room for discussion, he came off as simply bitter and out of ideas.
[edit: I didn't get around to finishing this post in time, so I am going to focus on some of the less time-sensitive aspects]
Basically, the problem boils down to a lack of identity and direction. On one hand, Microsoft is asking people to switch from their default search engine, without realizing what a big thing that is. In terms of customer loyalty, most CPG, QSR, or durable goods manufacturers would KILL to get the kind of consumer loyalty that Google has. So saying, "come on, just switch search engines" isn't such a casual request. Thus, in order to tempt those users and get them to break away from a product that has served them well, you would think that Microsoft would work hard to differentiate themselves from the competition, and hammer their USP (unique selling proposition).
Does Microsoft do that? No! They consistently, including in this recent rant by Ballmer, point out that their algorithms are pretty similar to Googles, and can usually return almost the same results.
Okay, and...
Oh, you were done?
So their big pitch to break entrenched consumers out of their searching habits boils down to, "We're pretty much as good as the one you are using now." Very compelling. Maybe you want to try that again?
Remember the recent commercials (part of a huge (and largely unsuccessful) advertising blitz over the last few years by Microsoft to steal market share from Google), during which a catchy song plays while comparing the boring Google homepage skin to the awesome, 'picture-a-day' element of the Bing homepage? Yeah, that's better. Use Bing for reasons that have nothing to do with the service it provides, but because it has a better background. Fail.
What else ya got?
Perhaps the most absurd thing about Ballmer's recent comments was his attack against Google for having a monopoly, and suggesting that anti-trust action should be taken against them by the government. For one thing, Microsoft accusing anyone else of using monopolistic business practices, or having effective control of too large a portion of any market, is just ridiculous on its face, given their own past in that respect.
But it also speaks again to the company's, and Ballmer's, complete 'forest-for-the-trees' lack of understanding of the environment they are in. Google doesn't control the end-to-end supply chain the way that Microsoft did, nor have they forced adoption of their service by setting up harmful deals with all of the hardware suppliers, or abused foreign markets. Google separated themselves early on in a crowded marketplace and have given users a reason to stay with them along the way.
Google has given us a search engine, e-mail service, cloud storage and collaboration capacities, blogging platform (this one), video hosting service, maps, calendars, site analytics, and so much more, all free to the user (depending on how you value things like user data and captivity). Microsoft has given us Bing, and then a bunch of products that they want to sell us (operating systems, phones, etc.), all while doing very little to actually entice me to spend time on their platform.
Instead of improving their product though, Microsoft has decided to just stamp their feet and declare the whole system to be unfair. Now, as a marketer, I have had my problems with Google (especially as they hide organic search keywords), but as a user and observer, I wouldn't say that fairness is the issue in terms of the search product. Maybe their marketing practices are heading in that direction, but as a search business they have been pretty heavily scrutinized by governments in North America and Europe, and haven't been hit too hard yet.
Microsoft assumed that just being their huge selves would be enough to climb into the search market and succeed, and they have done nothing but miscalculate at every juncture.
Since they are facing a leadership vacuum right now, here is a little free advice (consider this my application for Steve's position):
- Offer something of value to the consumers you want to court.
- Being an alternative is not, in isolation, a value proposition.
- Understand that a single platform isn't enough anymore, you aren't competing with Google as a search engine, you are competing with Google as a service provider.
- Provide a range of free services, even if you have to buy them.
- Along those lines, buy Intuit and link Bing to Mint. Or buy Twitter, and expand your partnership with Facebook. Or buy Hulu, and make it free (get rid of premium) to signed in Bing users. Or buy LinkedIn. Get the picture?
- If you are going to compete for marketing dollars, you need reach across platforms, and a broader range of ad formats that you can bundle.
Maybe not all of those are feasible, but you have to do something, since your current strategy of doing nothing isn't working, and whining about it turns people off.
You know that when Google releases their OS (and it's a 'when,' not an 'if'), it's going to be free. Think about that the next time you try to give my computer what is basically a virus and charge me $499 for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment