01.30.08
Microsoft: “Evangelism is WAR!” [as Text] (Updated)
Something to keep in mind amidst OOXML debates
Publisher: Microsoft
Source: Full document [PDF] (from Comes vs Microsoft)
# Mission
. Establish Microsoft platforms as de facto standards
# Enemies
. Other platfom vendors
[...]
We’re here to help Microsoft
# Microsoft pays our wages
# Microsoft provides our stock options
# Microsoft pays our expenses
[...]
I have mentioned before the “stacked panel.” Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners — our usual opposition. For example, an “unbiased” panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the Backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus, we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every “naturally occurring” panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel The best sources of pliable moderators are:
Analysts: Analysts sell out – that’s their business model But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
“Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up.”Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he’s well-known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?
Gathering intelligence on enemy activities is critical to the success of the Slog. We need to know who their allies are and what differences exist between them and their allies (there are always sources of tension between allies), so that we can find ways to split ‘em apart Reading the trade press, lurking on newsgroups, attending conferences, and (above all) talking to ISVs is essential to gathering this intelligence.
MS-PCA1913194
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Generalized Evangelism Timeline Microsoft Confidential
Credit: Slated
Updated: John Drinkwater has converted a lot of the whole thing into text. Thanks, John.
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
John Drinkwater said,
January 31, 2008 at 6:20 am
I’ve linked this before, I converted the PDF into an ODP, and uploaded to Google: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfz5s2nv_4gbzft5
and the embed code: <iframe src=’http://docs.google.com/EmbedSlideshow?docid=dfz5s2nv_4gbzft5′ frameborder=’0′ width=’410′ height=’342′></iframe>
Roy Schestowitz said,
January 31, 2008 at 7:09 am
Brilliant. Ta, John. I’ve updated the post.