From: John Frederiksen
Sent: Monday, October 27, 1997 9:45 AM
To: Mike Nash
Subject: FW: PR Training Confirmation and Reading Material
Mike,
I am currently confirmed for the Thursday of this class, but not for
Friday. I had scheduled to take Wed through Fri of that week off to
visit my Father on the east coast prior to the following weeks reviewers
tour. I moved the trip back by two days but need to travel on Friday. I
just wanted to make sure that you were aware of this. John F.
---Original Message-
From: Erin Holland (W=3Faggener Edstrom)
Sent: Monday, October 27, 1997 9:35 AM
To: Bill Shaughnessy; Frank Artale; John Frederiksen; Enzo Schiano; Ed
Muth; Karan Khanna; Gary Schare; Jeff Price; Stephanie
Ferguson; Jonathan Perera; Tanya van Dam
Cc: Mike Nash; Heidi Meslow 0Naggener Edstrom); Rich Tong; Kelly
Lymburn; Kathleen Mallory (Intemet) (Waggener Edstrom);
Megan McKenzie (Waggener Edstrom); Rachel Weikum; Travis Bishop
(Waggener Edstrom); Laurie Smith DeJong (Intemet)
(Waggener Edstrom)
Subject: PR Training Confirmation and Reading Material
You are confirmed for Principles of PR training! We=3Fll see you at 9:00
a.m. on Thursday at the Bellefield Conference Center (address and
directions below.) Again, here are the logistics for the training
session (lunch will be served on Thursday and Friday for those attending
the afternoon session). I have also attached the reading materials
below.
..
Re.engaging the Industry
We have developed a way of working where the negatives about Microsoft=3Fs
image are addressed by corporate PR programs which talk to non-industry
audiences and don=3Ft really involve the Microsoft divisions. It makes
sense to be doing these corporate programs and addressing the broad
audiences and we should keep doing so, but it=3Fs worth visiting whether
we should also do some work to address image issues at the industry
level.
Before the Internet became a focal point, Microsoft had gained the
perception as the undisputed center of the PC industry. Microsoft was
Windows and the industry revolved around it. The primary requirement was
to move the platform technology forward and share it freely with
developers. Over time, Microsoft began to lessen its participation in
industry forums because Microsoft essentially owned the agenda. Although
competitors and others in the industry still looked at Microsoft with
animosity, the industry had reached a period of relative order. Thus it
was determined that a Microsoft-centric communication strategy was the
most efficient at accomplishing the company=3Fs marketing objectives. It
was deemed better to have our own events rather than participating in
industry events.
Things have changed.
Bill has said that no company has moved successfully from one era to the
next. With the rise of the lnternet, Microsoft is working to make a
technical and marketing transition without sacrificing its position of
leadership and control. Because this is consistent with what customers
want, it=3Fs a reasonable path. But perceptually, the ground has shifted
under our feel, and characters are being redrawn. Rather than leading
"the" industry, Microsoft is now seen as a participant in an industry
whose character is still being determined. Intemet pioneers will say the
party was already going and Microsoft just showed up. Industry animosity
is increasing. Whenever there is change, there is uncertainty and fear.
In this case, there is fear about what the outcome of Microsoft=3Fs forays
in the Internet era will mean for other companies. People assume that
Microsoft=3Fs goal is to control Microsoft=3Fs rapid turnaround, which was
established firmly in people=3Fs minds by the Kathy Rebello story in
Business Week and echoed by many others, is leading people to wonder if
Microsoft will be the only company to ultimately succeed in the Internet
space. It is this fear that Reback and others are tapping into.
The editorial community is intensely interested in who will win. There
is a sense of delight in the editorial community about the new foment in
the industry. It makes for more interesting stories. Thus, the many
companies who did not succeed in the PC industry as well as Microsoft
are working fervently to assure that Microsoft does not make the
transition to the next phase. The interesting thing is that with the
prominent exception of Netscape, most of the new "enemies" are really
the old enemies -- Sun, Oracle, IBM. However, given Microsoft=3Fs
overwhelming dominance, these historic competitors have successfully
recast themselves as the new guard, protecting the industry from
Microsoft domination.
None of this has much to do with real customer problems that need to be
solved and technology solutions that we need to communicate. Microsoft
shouldn=3Ft stop engaging in a substantive dialogue and talking about its
vision for the Internet. Indeed, we need to be less presumptive and
spend more time educating about our technical approach (see discussion
about Active Platform, the future of applications, the push model, and
the media strategy). Clearly communicating our directions will help make
Microsoft more predictable and, therefore, less vulnerable to negative
and uninformed assumptions. The goal is to diminish the fear.
We also need to recognize the perceptual shifts and re-engage in the
industry. We need to be willing to appear to be listening and learning
shoulder-to-shoulder with other companies. We need to stop holding
ourselves apart from the rest of the industry and focus on more give-
andtake in our communication. The point here is that it is better for
Microsoft to be perceived as a participant and a bearer of new business
opportunity, than the company that wants to accrue all the good business
for itself, to the exclusion of others. There is almost a formulaic
approach to coverage when MS gets into a new business -- if Microsoft
enters a business, everyone else better look out because MS will get 90
% of it. Based on some key businesses, namely Windows and the
applications business, that would be a reasonable conclusion. However
the Internet world is a far different place. Many many companies will be
founded and prosper. To the extent that the perception of much success
is fostered, it will help Microsoft=3Fs image.
One way to address this is for Microsoft to participate more in industry
gatherings. It=3Fs easy to stay home from these since the topics are often
stacked against Microsoft. But if we are really motivated to share our
vision, we=3Fll be willing to be perceived as taking it to others, not
exclusively asking people to come to ours. Microsoft is well known by
press and analysts but we are relatively invisible to the rest of the
industry. Being unknown leads to being misunderstood. In addition, more
executives need to be engaged in the work of corporate image.
Specifically, we should:
* Continue to emphasize context-setting, explaining and discussing the
implications of our
strategy.
* Promote executives as ambassadors and insist they not only speak at
MS-sponsored events but at industry conferences, where they should not
only share the Microsoft vision but stay to listen and discuss issues
with others. In addition, the tone of Microsoft tradeshow booths and
other corporate participation needs to be open and inclusive.
* Replicate the Hood Canal exercise with other editors and other MS
execs in attendance; for instance, what if we had Paulma and Bradsi sit
down with editors and talk about the future of applications?
* Hold an IMG Day for editors, not to pitch our products for coverage,
but to address strategy and content issues in an interactive way with
people who care about them (see below for comments about fears about
Microsoft as a media company).
Thought for 1997
* To project more humility, re-emphasize in all press and industry
interactions the demonstrated signs of curiosity, openness and
discovery.
* Undertake more relationship-building with Silicon Valley influentials
and editors. A lot of the animosity about Microsoft is engendered by its
lack of visibility to Silicon Vailey.
* Rekindle developer relations in a more visible way. Ever since we
"won" the last set of API wars, we=3Fve been less effective here. We
address this opportunity later in this memo. The olher thing we can
focus on is for Microsoft to control some of the negative dialogue by
talking about our challenges ourselves. We should be looking for
stories, op-ed and speech opportunities on topics such as:
* why we haven=3Ft won -- we have much respect for our competitors.
* what we=3Fve learned from mistakes.
* what we worn about.
* how PCs can be better.
..
Today, we appearto be talking out of both sides of our mouth. On the one
hand, we claim to love Java, to provide IE on multiple platforms, and to
offer Active Platform as OS-agnostic. On the other hand, we denigrate
Java apps as "least common denominator" and claim that by writing to
Windows system services, developers can create better apps. To an
unbiased observer, it appears that we are promoting two platforms --
Windows and Active Platform. To a less generous observer, it appears
that we are feigning support for Java while secretly pushing Windows and
trying to dominate the Internet with our legacy power. Once again, it
appears Microsoft is only interested in controlling the platform.
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02783.pdf
--
court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.
|