May 25, 2007
tara and the blue monster…
Send to Kindle
Heh. My buddy, Tara Hunt has her reservations about the Blue Monster.
Whether or not they are actually ‘changing the world or going home’ is up for deep debate and discussion, but when they showed up at the Web 2.0 Expo sporting this cartoon all over t-shirts and signage, I was taken aback. The PR people were standing at the door to the MS session, happily handing out their (men’s XL & XXL) tshirts to everyone coming into the session. A big smile, saying, “See? We’re hip. We’re listening,” across their face.
Fair enough. The interesting thing to me is, Tara seems to perceive the Blue Monster as a message originating from inside Microsoft, directed to the outside world. Wrong. It’s a message that originated OUTSIDE Microsoft, directed internally. The fact that Microsoft is sending it back externally shows there’s a two-way conversation starting. Which was the entire point of the exercise, after all.
I am reminded of a big A-HA! moment I had a few years ago when I first realized that the REAL story about Robert Scoble’s blog [when he was still working at Microsoft] was not about how it was changing external perceptions about Microsoft [“Oh, what a lovely blog. I think I’ll stop hating Microsoft from now on.”], but how it was stirring things up inside the company.
Yes, I tend to view the Blue Monster in much the same way.
I see the Blue Monster less of a message, and more of a social object that starts a conversation. That’s what keeps it interesting. As soon as the Microsoft brand police try to take it over and turn it into a straight external marketing message, it’s over. Though yeah, Tara’s post was a good warning of that scenario, I think by focusing just on the externals, and not really giving ANY thought to the internal dimension, she kind of missed the most important point.
And to take the Scoble analogy one step further. Well, as revolutionary as Scoble’s blog seemed at the time he was at Microsoft, as wonderful as it was, he ultimately didn’t change Microsoft from top to bottom, either. But that is not to say his blog was neither useful or valuable. It certainly was both to me.
[UPDATE:] Nice observation from JP Rangaswami:
If I’ve interpreted [Tara] correctly, she also alludes to another, equally important point: People want Microsoft to change. That is the essence of what made the Blue Monster such a hit, it was a way of people outside Microsoft telling people in Microsoft of the intense need for change, a point that Hugh makes eloquently.
"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter.
A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.].
A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.
Other Useful Links
Send to KindleAbout Hugh. Hugh’s Book. Twitter. Facebook. Cartoon Archive.
Hugh’s Artist’s Statement: “Remember Who You Are”
Tags: JP Rangaswami, Microsoft, Robert Scoble, Tara Hunt, The blue Monster
But this cartoon is still missing the ‘for the better’ qualification!
There’s little doubt, in my mind at least, that Microsoft has and will continue to change the world. (The sheer number of users of their products almost guarantee this.) It’s the way they change the world that matters.
’Microsoft make a positive, tangible difference to the world or go home’ doesn’t have the same ring to it though, does it?
Exactly, Matt.
I made the same point in comment section in the original Blue Monster post:
http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003388.html
Although granted, I am biased because of relationship with them, I do believe history will be much kinder to MSFT than most people would guess.
Interesting that you say that it’s all over if it only goes external… so does this mean that if internally the concept is rejected then it’s all over for you too?
Major premise: As soon as the Microsoft brand police try to take it over and turn it into a straight external marketing message, it’s over.
Minor premise: The PR people were standing at the door to the MS session, happily handing out their tshirts to everyone coming into the session. A big smile, saying, “See? We’re hip. We’re listening,” across their face.
Conclusion: Erm.…so it didn’t actually take very long, did it? Especially by megacorp standards.
Nobody can say the MSFT brand police aren’t agile when they smell food.
> The fact that Microsoft is sending it back externally shows there’s a two-way conversation starting.
I don’t know about that; a mirror does the same thing, but that doesn’t mean it is actually paying attention to you, considering your needs or desires, or serving you in any way beyond providing your reflection. And it might not even be doing that; it might just be blinding you with glare, which seems to me more like what Microsoft’s interactions with the public often seem to be. If Microsoft’s use of your cartoon does show that there is a two-way conversation starting, it seems to be with you, not the general public.
If Microsoft really wants to have a conversation with the general public, it needs to show that it is listening by acting on what the public is saying and asking about the company and its products. For example:
1. A lot of people seem to be having Xbox 360 system failures, including me, my brother, and writers for various Web sites. Why have there been so many problems and what, if anything, is Microsoft doing to improve quality? (Beyond handling repairs, which it has already changed AFTER replacing my system with a filthy, used one instead of repairing it.)
2. Your Xbox 360 DRM system is unpopular among those who know about it because it permanently links content to a particular console, not even transferring rights to warranty-replacement or upgrade-replacement consoles, and the secondary user-associated DRM requires users to be logged in to use their content, rendering content unavailable when a replacement console does not have access to the Internet. Why do you not allow the transfer of rights from one console to another even for the same user? Do you not realize that this policy is preventing you from making money every time someone who might otherwise make a purchase from the Xbox Live Marketplace decides against the hassle and restrictions of your DRM?
3. What might cause simple file copy operations to fail under Windows Vista and more importantly, when such failures occur, why does Windows not bother to report them to users, instead just allowing its file transfer windows to close silently?
4. Why does the so-called “Activation Assistant” for Microsoft Office 2007 demos that comes pre-installed on HP computers report that Microsoft Office, a demo of which also comes pre-installed on HP computers, is not installed even when it is installed and even when a Microsoft Office application is actually running?
5. Why does attempting to UNinstall the aforementioned “Activation Assistant” result in an error message that Microsoft Office must be installed before the “Activation Assistant” can be installed even when BOTH are already installed?
6. Why does it do so when Microsoft Office has already been uninstalled instead of just uninstalling itself?
7. What were you thinking with the interface to Internet Explorer 7?
8. Why is the CSS support in IE 7 still so poor — so very far behind Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc.?
9. Why do Windows Live support queries go unanswered?
Those are just off the top of my head, but if Microsoft really wants to have a two-way conversation with the public, it can start with these kinds of issues — the kind of things that affect the general public — not just by fueling the PR machine with words and pictures from prominent bloggers.
By the way, file-copying issue and IE 7 aside, I actually like Windows Vista, which makes the file-copying thing very frustrating indeed since it is by itself a deal-breaking problem (I had to revert my Windows workstation to Windows XP).
Anonymous, I’ve seen no eveidence of mass internal rejection. Some get it, some don’t. Whatever.
Maggie, as far as I know the corp-level brand police haven’t involved themselves with this one. Yet.
Food! Yay!
Brian, companies don’t have conversations with the general public. People have conversations with other people. Therein lies the rub.
“As soon as the Microsoft brand police try to take it over and turn it into a straight external marketing message, it’s over“
Hihi — me again. Actually I think it’s kind of cool if they take it over — it at least shows a sensitivity to good marketing.
But the corporate animal in me doesn’t buy the observed behaviour as deliberate. This may sound glib, but I see serendipity at work (or even Occam’s razor). What if they just don’t understand that it’s a message coming into MSFT from the outside, but only ever see this as a groovy message to the outside world? Then it’s kind of sad — the internal conversations never really happen, and nor do they betwixt inside and outside — and then it really is all over.
Zakamundo, I see no evidence whatsoever that internal conversation never happened.
Bear in mind, it’s still early days, it’s still beneath the radar.
Tara made the same mistake all marketers do — at first. They see this as a way of revenue generation. When I hear that I usually growl and point out they’re talking bollox.
The risk still stands Hugh as I’m sure you know. But then MSFT marketing is so shite this would be looked on as dead cool.
It’s worth getting together with Thomas Otter and Craig Cmehil at SAP. Internally there, some people get this stuff and others don’t. THAT’S PERFECTLY OK. Thomas is taking steps in both directions, holding internal meetings with zero PPT and showing pics of the Blue Monster. It horrifies some (they’re in co-opetition remember) while others get it and yet others, well, it’s a slow awakening.
On my Big Project, it is exactly the same.
My line is more direct –something like: The worst thing that can happen to you is that you become irrelevant because you know what that means? Silence.
And as they say in Alien: In space (the void), no-one hears you scream.
Someone at Microsoft should read The Brand Gap.
Microsoft would do well to understand the laws of brand extension and category divergence. If the DoJ had broken them up, I think they’d be a lot stronger as a collective today and wouldn’t have the stigma of a quashed conviction and a pardon by a president sending people to their death in a pointless conflict (where is the declaration of war?)
And if you never go home, where is your work/life balance?
Hey Hugh,
Thanks for this.
I actually didn’t assume it came from inside of Microsoft. I know it didn’t. I should have clarified that. In this case, it was a co-optation of a really great message.
Personally, I’m with Brian and I’m cynical about the idea that this is a real conversation.
I do know some ‘inside’ information (probably much like you do) and there appears to be a war waging between two sides at Microsoft — the traditional and corporate types whose only goal is to be #1 and keep biggering and biggering and getting richer, and the customer evangelists and nerd ethical types who want to see Microosft change the world. Ballmer leads the former, Ozzie leads the latter. This has been brewing for many, many years.
So, though there are conversations between people, as you say, it remains to be seen whether it will reach the corporate level…as corporations must be corporations, nonetheless (it is actually illegal for a company in the US to not put their profits first).
Personally, I think they have lost relevance. I think there are people inside of MS who are and can change the world and they will continue to do so in or outside of MS, but more often in spite of MS.
In the end, blue monsters and subversive messages are great and edgy, but what I’m interested in goes beyond any conversation, it goes into the land of corporate sides listening and absorbing, interpolating messages and actually doing stuff about them. THEN you can wave your cool blue monster t-shirts around as much as you want because it’s a celebration, not smoke and mirrors.
That’s all.
Perhaps there should be an official “trickster” or “Loki” job position in large companies — someone who’s job it is to actively stir up trouble, point out that the emperor has no clothes, and generally act as a counterpoint to the groupthink that can sometimes stifle a large organization.
(And I’m not talking about trouble for the sake of it, or offensive trouble — constructive trouble, if such a thing is possible).
It would take a brave organization to do that though… and performance reviews for that person would be interesting.
Tara, I disagree with you about it being just smoke and mirrors.
As I’ve said before, what’s interesting to me is not “the message” of the Blue Monster per se [which is deliberately ambiguous]. What’s interesting to me is the conversations it is generating around it… which I assure you are very real.
You’re the one who wrote “Microsoft is sending it back externally”, Hugh, so you seem to be both accepting and rejecting the notion of collective forms of communication. Certainly, things work differently depending upon the direction — companies have PR people through which their official or semi-official company messages are funneled while the general public has both cumulative individual voices and some voices that are quite loud and clear even apart from the others (e.g., prominent bloggers) — but messages are definitely being sent both ways. Even so, you’re right, Hugh, that it isn’t really a conversation on that level. It’s more like a lecture by someone who ignores the audience instead of participating with it. It could be more like a proper conversation, though, if the company wanted it to be.
The difficulty is that while a company such as Microsoft can get a pretty good idea of what people are really thinking and what they really want from direct feedback, prominent blog articles, discussion forums, and such, the public does not often receive such clear, honest, open messages in reply. When they have something to sell, the relevant employees of any given company are happy to tell us all what to buy and where to buy it, but that is not really interactive beyond responding to perceived market demands or desires.
If the people inside a company were to provide a company-level response to collective public feedback and buzz, though — honestly and openly acknowledging and addressing the seemingly high rate of Xbox 360 consoles, for example, or the immovability of Xbox 360 content rights — then I think it would be fair to say that a company and the public are having a conversation of some sort. That is completely up to the people inside the company, though; collectively, the public always speaks what is on the minds of the people of whom it is comprised without any organizational barriers, but companies and their employees do not always listen or respond in kind.
One interesting aside — while people try and bring disruption from the inside, it rarely takes a serious game changing hold — unless supported by the CEO. Once you bring outside influence to bear things can change. It’s amazing what going from being employed to being a consultant can do.
Brian, I know there are a lot of things MSFT could do better… thanks for the suggestions.
I happen to agree with a lot of what Tara is saying… It’ll be an interesting five years for MSFT. The ONE THING I DON’T WANT TO SEE is MSFT going down a similar path the Detroit carmakers took i.e. a slow, painful, uninspired meltdown.
I posted this on Tara’s blog but decided to post here too rather than just clack away on the keyboard again:
I guess when Hugh first penned the Blue Monster he never thought it would spread so far and wide. I didn’t when he sent it to me and 3 other folks last year. What’s been interesting is to watch how it has spread and from where — more external to Microsoft than internal initially but now it’s starting to show up more within Microsoft.
This is where it could get tricky and where it *could* be subverted by groups wanting some of the Blue Monster “kool aid”. If that happens I for one will be disappointed but I honestly don’t see any groups within Microsoft ready to take the risk and use this in any mainstream way. Thankfully Hugh made it too off piste else it would have drowned by now in some cheap shot marketing gig.
This started at the grassroots and will grow bottom up, not top down. As I’ve said in many other blogs, I keep waiting for the brand police to call me and ask me “wtf” about this. It’ll be a shame if it comes to that but it’d be more of a shame if it gets bastardised for some quick, cheap, new age coolness for some group or other within Microsoft. I’m a little sad that it was used in the way it was at Web 2.0 Expo and will guard against that but given the cartoon is freely available and not owned by me (or Hugh actually) we run the risk of it being mis-used. I’ve already stopped a few of those efforts in the hope that it’s growth will continue to be organic, bottom up by people who actually take the time to understand the message behind it.
This thing was born out of a few people wanting to see a change. Some internal, some external. I hope it continues that way and it’s essence doesn’t drown in marketing. I don’t work in marketing…never have, probably never will so I have a vested interest in that not happening.
Thanks for raising the discussion Tara. I agree with lots of what you said, particularly in your follow up comments. It needed to be aired now to help keep the Blue Monster untarnished. For as long as we can anyway.
Tara, five days ago you say MSFT are increasingly irrelevant. Then five days later they launch this:
http://greenwhite.org/2007/05/30/lookout-microsoft-just-invented-something-big/
Never a dull moment in the tech world
Li heo!
Check this out!
*