The real question: How to keep Microsoft on the transparency track
Summary: The April Wired Magazine cover story on "Radical Transparency," with its case study on Microsoft's Channel 9 and blogging initiatives, is making some waves, but for the wrong reasons. The real and most important question is whether Microsoft employees will be encouraged to continue being transparent.
The April Wired Magazine cover story on "Radical Transparency," with its case study on Microsoft's Channel 9 and blogging initiatives, is making some waves, but for the wrong reasons.
Some media members are simply shocked that Microsoft's PR team keeps dossiers on the reporters and bloggers who cover the company. That's old news, folks. And not even very interesting news.
A few years back, I had a chance to see my "dossier," which Microsoft's PR team inadvertently sent to another reporter, who forwarded it to me. (Thanks, Dan Gillmor!) Initially, it was alarming to see what I considered to be punishment plans for various stories I'd written. But nothing in my file was all that surprising. Among their other duties, PR people are paid by their clients to get stories placed -- and, if negative, hopefully killed -- on behalf of their clients.
(If I had reason to create my own PR dossier, detailing the my dealings with various Microsoft marketing-communications and public-relations team members, my ratings and payback plans would be far more dastardly.)
The more thought-provoking piece of Wired's package, at least to me, is the saga of how Microsoft's blogging and video-casting strategy came to be. Several Microsoft execs -- from the recently retired head of Platforms and Services Jim Allchin, to Corporate VP of Developer & Platform Evangelism Sanjay Parthasarathy -- championed the transparency concept. They encouraged their employees to blog and allow the Channel 9 team to record interviews with some of Microsoft's best known developers.
I read the thousands of Microsoft MSDN and TechNet blogs and (less happily) spend hours watching these videos on a regular basis. Sure, there's some fluff, as well as some indecipherably geeky bits, in there. But many of them have been invaluable in helping me -- and, I'd wager, Microsoft partners and customers -- better understand Microsoft.
The real question, to me, is whether Microsoft employees will be encouraged to continue being transparent.
With many of Microsoft's old management regime retiring/quitting/moving on, will Microsoft employees be allowed to keep blogging as openly as they have been? Will self-policing set in? Or, worse, will bosses start cracking down on employees who dare to acknowledge the existence of a service pack, a manager's resignation or a shift in strategy? Will Microsoft attempt to extend any kind of blogging/transparency crackdown to its Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs), featured communities and other constituencies, claiming that it's for everyone's best? I've heard and seen things that lead me to believe these things are already starting to happen.
I'd argue that corporate transparency -- just like the idea of "giving away" news for free on the Web -- is one of those concepts that turns accepted thinking on its head, but ends up being the right and logical choice.
What do you think? Is Microsoft's transparency campaign destined to be a short-lived experiment that will gradually fade away?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
I have concluded there is a new monopoly strategy afoot
Microsoft in its traditional paranoid business model is afraid that the OS and traditional monopoly is going away (i.e., EU hexes and Google/Linux threats), and it sees itself as a manufacturer of commodities in its OS business.
The new strategy seems to be, move on to something else. And knowing Gates and Balmer as the leveraged business strategy kings, I think he sees solution to the problem of loss of OS (and intentional crippling of their OS via DRM) as an opportunity in disguise. And he sees this opportunity with the single statement `we will own the living room'. You may not be aware of a little publicized effort to get FCC approval to use the white space bandwidths in the unused television broadcasting spectrum. MS in partnership with a few other players is trying to develop a new high speed internet capability that can be broadcast over the airwaves. J
ust think about that a minute and realize that the transparency of MS is about to submerge until the new strategy is firmly in place, enough time so none of us will know what hit us until it is too late. All this shift in strategy will drive a significant effort toward confidentiality and proprietary efforts.
Interesting idea, but communication monopolies get busted too
Microsoft has grown wise to the legal dangers of Monopoly
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070327/fcc_internet_device.html?.v=1
The difference is MS has a head start in technology and experience and is not afraid to leverage whatever it takes to garner business. I doubt they would get nailed this time even if they end up with 90% of the business.
You cannot underestimate the marketing and shrewd savvy of MS to garner market share.
The wages of transparency
Using blogs to "trounce" Microsoft
I provide links to Microsoft blogs to give my posts more authority and relevance. I, for one, prefer knowing where my information is coming from...
I thought transparency was forced by the DOJ
I think if MS were left unwatched, they wouldn't remain transparent.
The problem is of course, can we believe everything we read from the venues MS
controls? I don't think anyone should be so naive to think they can.
um, no...
The strategy seems to be working pretty well and frankly MJF, contrary to what ever BS you dreamed up about new management squashing it, I don't see it stopping because I'm finding more and more MS bloggers showing up online every week.
I've also heard that MS has more bloggers than any other company on the planet. Compare that to Apple or whomever you admire in the tech space. Heck, I think its a firing offense to talk about anthing at Apple unless Steve Jobs approves it personally.
depends on how MS cynical one is
I tend to look at it more as a ruse for the original thesis I proposed in post #1 of this blog, with the caviat that MS will take it if it helps them. And why wouldn't they?
MS Bloggers: Quality vs. Quantity
Re: Number of Microsoft bloggers. Yes, Microsoft does have more than 4,000 bloggers, making it one of the biggest blogging houses in the tech world. That is admirable. But look at some of these blogs. Some are really great and useful. Some are nothing but a place for posters to one-up each other with "sanctioned" links.
Try this. Check out the Shell Revealed blog (http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/default.aspx), which is "the blog of the Windows client team." Look at some of the earlier posts from last year, where contributors to this blog wrote about useful things like the status of Windows Live "Casino." Now look at the more recent posts on that blog. They are more like how-to links. Coincidence? I am doubtful.
Sure
And I'm sure that for a journalist that blog post you cited may not be interesting, but that does necessarily not mean that the post is not useful. For the people using the products it might be.
Plus, why should the blogs be used to provide every single detail on every single strategy? Keeping a lid on confidential information is simply being smart, even if it makes being a journalist a little bit harder anyway :)
I hope transparency remains
Blog on MVPs...Blog on!!
Sean
Blog on SeanO
MVPs should speak up
The owner of the blog site at www.msmvps.com would like you to know ...
Look up the registrar of the site. Vlad Mazek of Ownwebnow.com is a friend of the site as well and helps out..but to say that Microsoft controls the content on the msmvps.com blogging site?
No way. It's commercial free and Microsoft non sponsored for the very reason to maintain the MVP independence and integrity.
To sum it up?
Over my dead body.
RE: The real question: How to keep Microsoft on the transparency track