Table of Contents
| Foreword | xi |
| Introduction: Of Bloggers and Blacksmiths | 1 |
| I | What's Happening | 7 |
| 1 | Souls of the Borg | 9 |
| 2 | Everything Never Changes | 23 |
| 3 | Word of Mouth on Steroids | 31 |
| 4 | Direct Access | 47 |
| 5 | Little Companies, Long Reach | 63 |
| 6 | Consultants Who Get It | 83 |
| 7 | Survival of the Publicists | 99 |
| 8 | Blogs and National Cultures | 115 |
| 9 | Thorns in the Roses | 133 |
| II | Blogging Wrong & Right | 147 |
| 10 | Doing It Wrong | 149 |
| 11 | Doing It Right | 169 |
| 12 | How to Not Get Dooced | 181 |
| 13 | Blogging in a Crisis | 197 |
| III | The Big Picture | 209 |
| 14 | Emerging Technology | 211 |
| 15 | The Conversational Era | 227 |
| Acknowledgments | 233 |
| Name Index | 239 |
| Subject Index | 247 |
Read an Excerpt
“[Corporations] cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed,
nor excommunicate[d], for they have no souls.”
—Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634)
We live in a time when most people don’t trust big companies. Headlines
gush with tales of malfeasance, abuse, and old-fashioned plunder, but
that’s just part of the problem. There’s a general perception that large companies
are run by slick lawyers and book-fixing accountants who oversee armies
of obedient, drone-like employees. Companies are perceived as monoliths
without souls. In short, we see no humanity.
For a very long time, Microsoft has been among the first companies you
think of when this picture is drawn. Often perceived as predatory and heartless,
Microsoft has a reputation for ruthlessly rolling over competitors, wrestling in
courtrooms against government prosecutors, and exposing its customers to
security flaws and frustrating glitches. To see how people express their views on
Microsoft, check it out with any search engine. When we conducted a Google
search, “Evil Empire + Microsoft” brought up 471,000 responses. The words
“Microsoft sucks” delivered a whopping 669,000 responses, and “Microsoft +
Borg” generated more than a quarter-million returns.
In reality, Microsoft is not a monolith, but rather an organization composed
of more than 56,000 individuals, most having little or no idea what sins were
committed in the past, or by whom. A great many of these employees weren’t
there at the time the controversies occurred, and if they were, they served too
far down the ladder to be in on the secrets. And well-documented Microsoft
product flaws may be amplified by the fact that just about everyone uses some
Microsoft products. Still, the company unquestionably has been hurt by these
dents in its reputation. Some talented people simply refuse to work there, and
many of those who do work there admit that they have sometimes been
demoralized by all the negativity.
In recent years, Microsoft has made serious efforts to improve its public
image. Walter Mossberg, author of the influential Wall Street Journal Personal
Technology column, observes:
Since the end of the anti-trust trial, Microsoft has been on a
massive charm offensive. It has methodically settled lawsuit
after lawsuit with rivals and governments. It has reached out to
all sorts of constituencies. [Chairman] Bill Gates himself has
become calmer, less publicly combative, since leaving the CEO
post. His charitable foundation has taken off in a very public
way. And the company has allowed numerous employees to show
a human face by blogging. All of this has improved their image.
Our informal research bears this out as well. Wherever we’ve looked, we’ve
found a recent diminution of animosity toward the company. Examining
those Google results closely shows that recent negative articles and postings
are on a downcurve. Publications are covering Microsoft from a more neutral
standpoint, and respected magazines such as Fortune and The Economist have
recently sung tunes of at least faint praise. In addition, product launches such
as MSN Spaces (Microsoft’s free blogging service) have been received with less
general skepticism in the technical community.
Even the oft-demonized Gates seems to be enjoying slightly friendlier
receptions. In late September 2004, the chairman addressed a half-dozen
Silicon Valley venues and seemed more comfortable than during past visits.
Media observers expressed surprise and even disappointment that most audience
questions were polite. The few audience challenges addressed security
flaws and Linux server issues rather than the usual ethical diatribes. Another
anecdotal piece is that the five-year-old “Evil Empire Blog” shut down in
January 2005. Its author maintained it was because mainstream media were
covering the issue so well. Others noted the blog’s readership was in decline.
Even Mitch Kapor, chairman of the Open Source Application Foundation
(OSAF) and long outspoken in his distaste for Microsoft, seems to have mellowed.
Speaking at a May 2004 conference, he told an interviewer, “Singing
songs about the Evil Empire may still be fun, but they’re merely tunes for
aging hippies.” Other long-time nemeses, such as Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Sun
Microsystems co-founder Scott McNealy, and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, for
varying business and legal reasons, have collectively sat down and shut up.
In addition to such anecdotal evidence, Microsoft has hard evidence: surveys
showing that customers are viewing the company in more trusting terms,
according to a survey Microsoft conducted of visitors to its Channel 9 blog.
Press observers see a change in what they hear from readers as well. PC
Magazine editor-in-chief Michael J. Miller told us, “I think many people, particularly
in Silicon Valley, have softened their views towards Microsoft. There
are probably a lot of reasons for this, including Microsoft’s larger presence in
the Valley, more outreach to the industry, and the post-Internet bust economy.”
But a growing number of Microsoft-watchers and people at mid-level desks
inside Microsoft think there’s another factor—blogging. And the people actually
doing it are downright certain that they are making a difference.
People, Not Borg
XML team program manager Joshua Allen acknowledged there were many
factors involved in the apparent shift in perception, but he felt that “Blogging
unquestionably has had the most impact.” Allen was Microsoft’s first blogger.
His current blog, Better Living Through Software
(http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/default.aspx), began in 2000, at about
the time the accusations and assaults against Microsoft were at an apex.
Governments wanted to dismember the company, and an “Anything But
Microsoft” movement was gaining momentum. He recalled a lot of internal
angst at the time: “We were afraid to get out there and just talk with people.
We were worried about getting the company in trouble with bad publicity.”
Allen didn’t ask for permission from his superiors or Legal or PR. He just
started posting to his blog because “I wanted to say that I am a Microsoft person
and you can talk with me.”
“I knew better than to do something stupid in public and I thought I would
make a good test case,” he recalled. Allen thought that if he started blogging,
fellow employees might follow and “we’d show that we were real people, not
the Borg.” He thought the company’s culture would be conducive to blogging.
Like other Microsoft bloggers we interviewed, he cited CEO Steve Ballmer as
consistently encouraging Microsoft employees to talk with customers whenever
and wherever possible.
In less than a month, his boss received the first internal e-mail demanding
Allen be fired. Such e-mails would continue regularly.
In time, a few associates close to Allen started blogging as well, then a few
more. When the number reached about 15, Legal started worrying and muttering
about risk. The bloggers, according to Allen, began walking on
eggshells. “Everyone was worried someone would do something stupid and
the whole thing would fall down. The legal people kept worrying and contemplating
guidelines.”
As of March 2005, there were more than 1,500 active bloggers at Microsoft.
“Legal is still worrying,” shrugged Allen, but “we haven’t had anyone do
something so incredibly stupid that it required a blogging policy and none has
ever been issued.”
While the legal folk fretted about risk, some customers waxed enthusiastic,
many not even realizing they were visiting something called a blog. The
customers were more interested in the two-way conversation that was taking
place than in how it was happening. They were happy that a real person
inside Microsoft was talking with them and was listening and responding.
The conversations begat more conversations. People like Dave Winer,
father of blogging technology; Doc Searls, co-author of blogging’s bible The
Cluetrain Manifesto; and Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, all
started pointing to Allen’s blog. The fact that a Microsoft guy was blogging
was sufficiently newsworthy for Winer to point his readers to Allen five times
in 2000. Allen recalled he got traffic just from people curious to see what the
Evil Empire was up to. “Other bloggers would link, saying, ‘This is what the
Borg is thinking,’” Allen said.
But Winer, long-considered one of Microsoft’s harshest critics, repeatedly
asked why more people at Microsoft didn’t blog. Each time he asked, a few
more people would start blogging. Allen felt that as numbers rose, it revealed
a company of diverse individuals that was “more like herding cats than the
Borg. People could see for themselves that there were camps and trends
within the company.”
Looking back, Allen said, “I think Microsoft has experienced a vast softening
of its image. People, including journalists, have a lot more information
about Microsoft now.” Perhaps more significant, he thinks, has been the
impact on employee morale and the company’s ability to attract new talent.
But management remains far from unanimous on the benefits and liabilities
of employee blogging, and it may turn out that the lack of a blogging policy
may prolong ambivalence. While some senior executives advocate actions
that would get bloggers to sit down and shut up, other executives protect the
backs of the bloggers and encourage them. Although Chairman Bill Gates
may have issued no internal dictums, he is on the record as seeing the value
and inevitability of business blogging. In September 2005 he thanked coauthor
Scoble for blogging and his work on Channel 9. “You are letting people
have a sense of the people here. You’re building a connection. People feel
more a part of this. Maybe they’ll tell us how we can better improve our products,”
Gates said during an exclusive interview.
Tony Perkins, CEO and publisher of AlwaysOn, the blogazine of innovation,
reported in the hard copy version of AlwaysOn on comments Gates made at
dinner in the chairman’s Lake Washington home in Seattle. According to
Perkins, Gates commented that “Blogging makes it very easy to communicate.
It gets away from drawbacks of e-mail and the drawbacks of a web site.
Eventually, most businesses will use blogs to communicate with customers,
suppliers, and employees, because it’s two-way and more satisfying.”
Perkins added, “Gates knows that the referral power of the blogosphere is
also exploding, and marketing and PR executives must embrace this reality or
risk losing control of their messages.” Both Gates’s comment to Perkins and
Scoble seem to indicate that Gates is not contemplating a blogging shutdown
or questioning its strategic value.
Allen politely implies a narrow view in the company’s anti-blogging constituency:
“Personally, I think [Microsoft’s blogging opponents] are well-intentioned,
but they worry too much and they underestimate the power of
word of mouth.”
What does Microsoft’s experience have to teach other businesses?
According to Allen, “Your whole company won’t collapse if you do this and
your customers will love you.”
Gates in the Way
Lenn Pryor joined Microsoft impressed with the company’s technology
accomplishments. When he came on board in 1998, as a tech evangelist he
hadn’t realized the full scope of the company’s worldwide unpopularity.
“The first thing I learned when I visited customers was that people were
not always happy to see you,” he said. “What got in the way of my relationships
was the fact that I worked for Microsoft. The two people who represented
the company—Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer—got in my way.” He felt
he had been painted into the corner by being associated with “two of the
wealthiest people on the planet.”
Pryor would have this recurring experience. He’d go out to dinner with a
customer. They’d be having a pleasant enough time; then the customer would
become quiet and pensive for a while, then blurt out: “You know, Lenn, I’m
really surprised that you’re such a nice guy. I didn’t expect you to be.” Pryor
would ask, “Well, why not?” And the customer would say, “Because you’re
Microsoft and Microsoft is fundamentally evil. You just don’t seem evil, so
you’re either really good at concealing it or I’ve read you guys wrong.”
These experiences bothered Pryor. Because he represented Microsoft, customers
seemed certain he could not be trusted. He stewed over this dilemma
for years.
A brief interlude in Microsoft hating occurred for one week every two years
in the form of Microsoft’s Professional Developer’s Conference (PDC). Around
6,000 developers would mingle with 2,000 Microsoft people. They’d see previews
of new technology, share ideas, eat pizza, drink, joke, show each other
family photos, and generally bond. “We were actually everyone’s friend. We
became human in our customers’ eyes and they became human in ours. All
the misconceptions went away,” recalled Pryor.
But when the event ended, so did the magic. Pryor knew that unless he
thought of some way to sustain the good feelings, they would dissipate: “We’d
be Microsoft again, the evil guys.” It had been a long week. He had an emotional
hangover and drove home with a cold. A few days later, he was taking
a long shower to shake off a Nyquil-induced haze. That’s when the epiphany
hit him.
At PDC, there had been a human connection. Microsoft employees saw and
heard the customers as more than just statistics, and customers saw Microsoft
representatives as real people. If Pryor could somehow bring this humanizing
factor into everyday life, Microsoft’s customer relationships might forever
change. What Microsoft needed, Pryor realized, was some form of open channel
that would humanize Microsoft, a daunting challenge if ever there was
one. Maybe, Pryor thought, he could create a form of reality TV inside
Microsoft that he could distribute to people using the Internet. He’d bring a
camera inside Microsoft to show the developers and tech gurus exactly as
they are, when and where they work. He would keep the footage raw, with no
editing, no marketing polish, and certainly no slick commentator in a suit
with a suntan.
This idea had been kicking around Microsoft for a while. Now, it would
become Channel 9, the quirky, impromptu video blog—and the only official
company blog. The name is derived from the United Airlines (UA) open
audio channel, on which passengers can listen to pilots during take-offs,
flights, and landings. Pryor knew it well, because that Channel 9 had helped
cure him of his fear of flying: “I had this terrible relationship with United
Airlines and its product. I was scared to death of their product even though I
had to use it for business and no one was doing anything about making me
feel better about them or their product. Sound familiar?” Pryor asked, smiling
impishly at his own metaphor. Pryor said he cured his fear of flying by
learning about the life of a pilot: “The more I could understand him, the more
I could feel that his best interests were my best interests. I don’t think there’s
any better way to describe how people feel about Microsoft than how people
feel who are afraid to fly.”
Microsoft, Pryor and the Channel 9 team decided, should build its own
Channel 9. His idea was to “just share our lives with people and then they’ll
see we’re human and they’ll trust us.” He envisioned that Channel 9 would
redefine evangelism. Historically, evangelists have extolled the virtues of their
company products by spreading the word about features and benefits. Pryor
wanted to shift the focus from products to relationships.
Pryor and co-worker Jeff Sandquist presented this idea to their boss, Vic
Gundotra, general manager for Platform Evangelism, who thought the idea of
having some guy walking around with a video camera filming people in hallways
and cubicles and having them talk about their jobs and their lives
sounded a bit crazy. But he liked the idea and told them to go for it. They
agreed the project should start low-key, certainly without marketing hoopla.
They also knew there would be people at Microsoft who would oppose it.
Gundotra would provide the air cover and his significant support.
Pryor would have to re-jigger his team. There was this guy, Robert Scoble,
a relatively new hire who hadn’t quite found his place at Microsoft yet. Pryor
had known Scoble previously. Winer had been Scoble’s mentor and boss at
Winer’s UserLand a couple of years earlier. A prolific, passionate, and perhaps
fanatical blogger, Scoble was posting up to 50 times a night on his personal
Scobleizer (http://www.scobleizer.com) site.
Before going to Redmond, Scoble had been NEC’s evangelist for the tablet PC.
In that role, he had attended a developer’s conference where he publicly advised
Ballmer to “give Microsoft a more human face.” (Ballmer rewarded the idea with
an autographed dollar.) When NEC first shipped its acclaimed tablet PC, Scoble
made certain two people in Redmond each got one of the first units to ship. One
was Gates. The other was Gundotra, who would eventually hire him.
Scoble wasn’t your typical Microsoft kind of guy, certainly not one you’d
expect to find in the front office. Said Pryor, “Robert lets his flaws hang out
on his sleeve. He’s curious like a child and it’s hard not to like and trust him.”
Scoble had already started his “Scobleizer,” which was often critical of
Microsoft, but Pryor noticed that while most Microsoft critics tried to climb
up and get in your face, “Robert always came across in a way that made me
want to listen. He’d say, ‘You guys did something wrong. Let me tell you why
it hurt me and why it hurts you and why I think you can do better.’ Robert
tells you a lot about himself. He puts himself on the line. He delivers criticism
from his heart.”
In fact, Pryor had first discussed the concept of bringing a video camera
inside Microsoft the previous March, when Gundotra was recruiting Scoble
away from NEC and into Microsoft. Gundotra had invited Scoble to a Sonics
basketball game where Michael Jordan would make his last uniformed Seattle
appearance. Turns out that Gundotra couldn’t make the game, so at the last
minute he asked Pryor to stand in for him. After Jordan’s courtside introduction,
the two never again glanced at the playing floor. Instead, they spent
three hours brainstorming and germinating the video concept. Neither recalls
who won the game, but both left feeling certain that, if the idea ever became
a reality, Scoble would be the right guy to put behind the camera.
Scoble joined Microsoft shortly after that, but the video idea remained dormant
until Pryor’s shower stall revelation. Scoble became a Microsoft evangelist,
and blogged at home every night. Six months passed before Pryor had
his shower epiphany that the Microsoft video blog would emulate Channel 9.
When he and Sandquist pitched Gundotra, Gundotra told them to make
Scoble the interviewer.
The team, which also consisted of two developers, Bryn Waibel and Charles
Torre, and program manager Sandquist, envisioned a hybrid, real-time format,
rich in communication and very two-way, with the audience’s voice being as
relevant as the video itself. Channel 9 would encourage real conversation, not
just drive-by stuff, where people hurled inflammatory comments and moved
on. “In my mind,” Pryor recalled, “Microsoft could start the conversation, but
it wouldn’t work if Microsoft controlled the conversation.”
Channel 9 began as a standard text blog. Pryor recalled, “I wanted everyone
to have a face on the site, to eliminate anonymity. The video came soon
after, with Scoble’s voice being heard asking people about their jobs and projects.
The viewers never saw Scoble, but they would hear him mutter an occasional
‘Oh crap,’ as he inadvertently walked into a wall he didn’t see because
he was looking through the lens. A Forum section allowed developers to
debate issues of all sorts. A collaborative system called a wiki was added to let
people inside and outside Microsoft work together on software. “We showed
who we are and where we work. We said: ‘Come look inside and see and hear
our people, hear our thoughts and passions.’” And people did—approximately
2.5 million of them in the first six months.
When asked about the risk involved in a project as visible and open as
Channel 9, Gundotra said the project was about increasing transparency,
which “is not high risk unless you have something to hide.” He thought
Channel 9 would accurately portray “a bunch of optimistic geeks who think
we can change the world for the better through the power of software. I
didn’t agree to do Channel 9—I was driving the creation, funding, and hiring
of the team.”
Said Pryor, “We used Channel 9 as a way to respond to customers. If people
wanted to know something, we put up a video about it. If there was a new
product coming out, we put up a video. We started responding to issues in
real time. This was not a documentary. This was a new approach—an interactive
video of real people talking about their work with customers.”
Channel 9 has been generally recognized as among the most innovative
forms of blogging or, for that matter, corporate communications. It was the
first corporate video blog. It was the first to put the words and faces of customers
on the front page, thus creating a form of “equal time” for those who
either praise or admonish Microsoft. It was also the first to use wikis to allow
a product team to collaborate with customers to improve products and
upgrades. It uses RSS, the technology that enables syndication, on every page
and was the first full corporate site to do so.
It’s open to speculation how Channel 9 will evolve. The Channel 9 conversation
strayed one time from its usual technocentric bastion into politics.
While some were concerned that Microsoft had lost control of the conversation,
Pryor was elated. The conversational shift indicated that Channel 9 was
no longer about Microsoft: “It’s about the community. Maybe the future of this
site is to turn the Channel 9 keys back to the community.”
Although Pryor’s background is in marketing, he eschews data mining and
sees no value in surveys. But he does admit the company has data that shows
Channel 9 has shifted perceptions of Microsoft from the negative to positive in
less than six months. “There’s no doubt we’ve moved the needle,” he said,
adding with apparent pride, “and we did it without so much as a press release.”
Pryor expresses faith in the anecdotal evidence that perceptions of Microsoft
have moved from a net negative to a net positive. He noted that blog polling site
Technorati (http://www.technorati.com) reported nearly 1,300 other blogs linking to Channel 9
and that PubSub (http://www.pubsub.com) rated Channel 9 in March 2005 at 5,877th of more than
8.5 million sites tracked at that time.
But Where’s the ROI?
Pryor admitted that management support for blogging is “far from unanimous.”
On one hand, there’s Scoble and a steadily increasing number of blogging
employees, building what they call a “trust network” while simultaneously generating
a steady flow of favorable media coverage. On the other, there are people
whose job it is to reduce risk and control corporate message. Finally, there
are those who believe in nothing that does not have a business model showing
a return on investment (ROI) as a direct result of an effort.
But a great number of the people inside think the risk is paying off. They
feel it in their everyday lives. “Today, Microsoft is building relationships,
while six months ago we were losing them,” Pryor stated flatly.
Still, he conceded that someday Scoble or another prominent blogger could
stomp on the wrong foot and get himself fired: “If Robert goes, it will suck,
but it’s not about one guy anymore. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle
again. Once you establish that this is how you’re going to communicate with
customers, you cannot go back to the way it was.”
Pryor, who has since left the company, noted that bloggers have to respect
the established turf. For example, bloggers almost never break hard news at
Microsoft, nor do they launch products, although sometimes they’ve posted
within minutes after an official announcement. But most day-to-day blogging
focuses on supplementing information for customers. “Our job is not to be
the place for the New York Times to find scoops.” Still, he maintains, blogging
gets good ink and lots of it, so it has to be good for attracting and retaining
customers.
But the question that lingered in most people’s minds: What about Gates
and Ballmer? Gates gave tacit endorsement to blogging in his interviews with
Scoble and Perkins in AlwaysOn. But then Ballmer’s position became clear on
July 7, 2005, during another exclusive interview with Scoble on Channel 9,
when Scoble asked his CEO why he allowed blogging to happen at Microsoft.
“In the world of developers I don’t think it would have mattered if I wanted
to allow blogging to happen or not,” Ballmer replied. “But I think it’s been a
great way for us to communicate to our customers—and for our customers,
more importantly, to communicate with us. We trust our people to represent
our company. That’s what they are paid to do. If they didn’t want to be here,
they wouldn’t be here. So in a sense you don’t run any more risk letting someone
express themselves on a blog than you do letting them go out and see a
customer on their own. It just touches more people. Hey, if people need to be
trained, we can do that, but I find that blogging is just a great way to have customer
communications.”
Sounds pretty definitive to us.