Home Interviews Developers Our View Blogs We Like The List

OurView: The Opinion Blog

These are the personal opinions of the respective authors.

February 2007 - Posts

  • What's (not) happening with Windows Live communities

    One of the reasons why we started LiveSide was to help to build a community around Windows Live, to share our thoughts and views with those who were interested in what Microsoft had to offer, and hear what they had to say in return.  While we’ve done reasonably well with that aim, it’s been disappointing for us to see that Microsoft hasn’t seized this opportunity to do the same.

    At the beginning of last year they were on the right track. Blogs were buzzing about what this new Microsoft initiative meant, and about the whole range of products that were being launched into beta.  Windows Live Events were held in several European cities, reaching out to community leaders to explain what Windows Live was about, and giving demonstrations of new products. This was a pretty successful start by anybody’s standards and one we were hoping would develop with time.

    Unfortunately there has been a steady decline since then, with Windows Live becoming more and more like the MSN of old. So why does the Windows Live community of late seem to be suffering? Here are a few reasons I came up with:

    • Few Windows Live employees have fully embraced blogging. Sure there are team blogs, but a number of these have fallen by the wayside or have commenting disabled. (There are some obvious exceptions here, credit to those where due.)
    • There is very little employee interaction on community blogs.
    • Lack of recognition from Microsoft – Windows Live isn’t a category on the featured communities’ pages, and wire.live.com has been dead for several months now. No communities are included in the live.com default feeds. All in all it’s almost as though Microsoft wants blogs about Windows Live to disappear.

    The first two are definitely troublesome, as it suggests that a) there is little interest in talking to the community or b) employees don’t feel they can say what they’d like to say to the community for fear of saying something they shouldn’t.  The third point however screams the loudest. Does Microsoft not want to encourage those blogging Windows Live in the hope they’ll just vanish into the night? Does the war with Google mean that keeping new developments quiet is more important than building a community around your products?

    To quote Sean O’Driscoll:

    “The only decision you get to make is whether or not to participate in that conversation. You must also accept the fact that you CANNOT control the conversation. In fact, the harder you try the more impossible it is”

    Punishing enthusiasm is bad. Pushing your most valued fans away is bad. Making them choose between serving the community and becoming little more than PR gimmicks is bad. The independent communities that do exist, and that we’re a part of, don’t work for Microsoft, so don’t expect them to follow the company line.  If you want PR go speak to News.com, if you want a discussion then join the conversation, and encourage your employees to do the same.

  • Enough Branding Jokes: Why Windows Live Hotmail is a good name that's bad

    Really.  At some point this has just got to stop.  Someone has got to get enough Kahunas at Microsoft to figure out a branding strategy for Windows Live, stick with it, and get on with the business of building a brand that can compete in the marketplace.  Truthfully, calling it Windows Live Hotmail is not a bad move, in itself.  Hotmail is a familiar brand, one that is used everyday worldwide.  It makes a lot of sense to keep it.  But making another mid stream correction, another change of course,  shows us so much about the lack of a cohesive strategy for Windows Live.  Why wasn't this done sooner?  Why was the Windows Live Mail name promoted only to be changed at the 11th hour (just call it Kahuna til it's released, sheesh!). In a coincidence that literally made us laugh out loud, Microsoft corporate vice-president Soma Somesegar posted last week on strategy, and included this gem:

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory…
    Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”   Sun Tzu

    We are not the only ones who wonder if there is indeed a strategy around the Windows Live brand.  Recently, Joe Wilcox posted on the Live branding issue, and offered some reasons why things are not going well (comments in italics are mine):

    Clearly Live isn't working out as well as Microsoft had hoped, and there are plenty of reasons:

    • Building a new brand takes time. Microsoft managers may believe in the appeal of the Office and Windows brands, but Live makes for something new. New branding requires lots of supporting marketing and time to build meaningful equity. (True, but it also requires some commitment to that brand.  Figuring it out as you go is just not good enough)
    • Live is too much MSN with a new label. The majority of Live products or services either existed under MSN or, if new, aren't that original. Microsoft can only imitate Google for so long. When I survey the landscape of new Live products, the majority are knockoffs of something released by Google or another Web platform company. As for the stuff kicked over from MSN, a new label doesn't make for a successful product. (And here again, Microsoft waffles on whether or not to brand products as Windows Live or MSN.  Soapbox only added to the confusion, and now we're hearing of other Windows Live beta products being re-rebranded back to MSN) 
    • Microsoft fumbled at the worst possible time. The company chose to build its search technology and advertising platform, just as Google really gained momentum. Maybe if Yahoo had done better competing with Google, Microsoft would have had time enough to get its stuff to market. But Google greatly benefited from mistakes made by both its closest search rivals. In December, according to Nielsen//NetRatings, Google search share topped 50 percent, more than double Yahoo. Microsoft came in, even at No. 3, with a paltry 8.4 percent. (My old saw: all of the arrogance of a monopoly with almost none of the market share.  Coming into this market haphazardly without a razor sharp strategy simply isn't going to work) 
    • Microsoft is paralyzed by organizational uncertainty. (All I can say here is AMEN!) Executive exits and changes coupled with a couple corporate reorganizations over the past 18 months have sucked some life out of Live. Some of the people responsible for the Live brand strategy are no longer involved in the process. Unless incoming chief software architect Ray Ozzie takes leadership and ownership for Live, it's hard to see how the situation can quickly improve.

    We've posted before too, about "where's Ray?", and tonite none other than Mini-Microsoft asks the same question, which tells us that Ray's silence extends internally.  It makes us edgy, too, Mini!

    What Microsoft has going for it of course is great wealth, the ability to withstand some otherwise deadly mistakes and flounder along like this without having to worry about folding up the tent.  MS, too, still has some cards to play, and even now Windows Live has not been fully revealed.  MS insiders tell us that there's lots of cool stuff to come.  That's all great, but in the meantime Windows Live is taking a beating out in the marketplace.  The brand is going nowhere.  Bill Gates at CES talked quite a bit about "Live Services", but not much at all about Windows Live.  And of course Ray Ozzie was nowhere to be found (although he will be keynoting Mix07).

    Certainly, in looking at the search numbers Joe Wilcox quotes, Microsoft is taking if anything a slow route to victory.  Let's hope all this talk about the Windows Live brand is not the noise before defeat.

 

Copyright (c) 2006-2007-2008 Liveside
Listed on the Offical CS Listings Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems Themed By nb development Logo By pxb Designed By Mark Sutherland