Microsoft PR: Looking Under The Hood 389
mtr writes "An interesting article uncovering some embarassing and amusing PR practices of our friendly software giant had been recently published by Michael Zalewski. The author recovered change tracking information from all the DOCs published on microsoft.com, and came up with something to cheer you up. It's funny when it happens to others - but even better if it fires back on themselves.
Read the full story here."
His Name is "Michal" (Score:4, Informative)
It's called "Silence on the Wire" and he is One Smart Dude (TM).
Full disclosure - I work for No Starch Press.
Already slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:His Name is "Michal" (Score:5, Informative)
The program he used is called wvWare [sourceforge.net], obviously a handy little tool. He also gives links to some documents that supposedly yield interesting results. They are reproduced here:
1 [microsoft.com],
2 [microsoft.com],
3 [microsoft.com],
4 [microsoft.com],
5 [microsoft.com]
So get cracking and have fun!
Re:Tool? (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdotted...here's a mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Re:web page tracking (Score:0, Informative)
The program Michal used is called wvWare [sourceforge.net], obviously a handy little tool.
He also gives links to some documents that supposedly yield interesting results. They are reproduced here:
1 [microsoft.com],
2 [microsoft.com],
3 [microsoft.com],
4 [microsoft.com],
5 [microsoft.com]
So get cracking and have fun!
P.S. This same post is somewhere lower in the threads - and probably going lower (i.e. it's sinking with its parent) ... I'm posting again hoping this copy won't go down. :P
Mirror Provided (Score:4, Informative)
Re:web page tracking (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing to see here...move along. (Score:2, Informative)
About the exec quotes (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually think the pr people were interviewing the ceo for a press release?
Re:Cue Lawyers! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone seriously think Bill, Bush, Gore, Gates, Thatcher, Scott, Arnold, etc. really have time to research and prepare up to a dozen dozen speeches every week on topics ranging from youth education, the state of the automobile industry, and how the new initiative will enhance health care in a region?
PR firms and flacks write speeches all the time because they are the ones with the time and training to parse highly specilised information into something Joe 6 p.m. nightly news reporter can understand, while making disasters look good for the company or government. Executives, however, are tasked with leading/spearheading/announcing important things when they happen and providing overall organizational leadership and management.
It would sometimes be nice if $leader fully understood the consequences of bituminous petro extraction and writes the entire speech himself before he speaks about it before their association, but I'd rather have $leader worry about leadership and management things which I might be paying him for through holdings or taxes.
Re:Thats what you get for bad design... (Score:4, Informative)
both of those solutions seem like the suck. word's colloboration feature is useful and popular because it's so simple--no extra steps+a flat file. all it seems to lack is an obtrusive "retain change information? yes/no" dialog when you save, because then people might actually remember to strip the doc before publishing it.
OpenOffice.org can't read them :( (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If only... (Score:5, Informative)
The Memory Hole [thememoryhole.org] has lots of goodies. The following was of particular personal interest:
DOJ Attorney Diversity [thememoryhole.org]
Re:This is what a PDF is for (Score:3, Informative)
but that would make sense.
Re:Informative line about Home Depot (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Informative line about Home Depot (Score:1, Informative)
You may want to look up the definition of humor....
Re:web page tracking (Score:3, Informative)
How News Releases are Written (Score:5, Informative)
Once I know I need to write a news release, I work out a plan. This includes goals, target audiences, media tools, means of measurement, key messages and key sources. If I need to involve external sources (the people I quote), I ask those companies for their consent to write a release. Depending on the relationship, they may send me the quotes *or* I might write quotes for them and have them approve them later.
It's often the last minute before the other company's senior execs, marketing staff, PR agency, lawyers, clients, or other stakeholders decide who they'll let me quote. They may have long debates over whether they want their quote attributed to the CEO, VP, client, Martian Sales Director, General Manager for Neptune, etc. It all depends on how they want to position their own quotes. And that's assuming they even wrote them. Whenenver I've had to deal with Microsoft, they've taken a week or more to approve a news release.
Virtually the same scenario takes place at my end. Various stakeholders provide input, and both the quotes and the sources (e.g. CIO) can change.
In my experience, anyone who ends up being quoted has to sign off on the quote. There are review processes. It's not like those people weren't involved.
When a CEO or other exec has a "real" interview with the press, the CEO reads from notes and statements that a marketer wrote. Before the interview starts, a marketer goes over all the notes and helps suggest possible questions and answers. The marketer sits in on the interview and (if cameras aren't present or it's over the phone) may help the exec piece together answers. Everything is heavily scripted. Eventually, the execs know the words by heart, or pretty close.
You can compare this process to the one used for professional speech writing, memos, letters, ghostwritten articles, and briefing notes. In fact, when I was just a co-op student, I was writing briefing notes, "question period responses", and other materials for the Canadian Minister of Immigration. Whether in a corporate or goverment environment, spokespersons rarely speak off the cuff. Except for Dan Quayle.
And, while I'm sure some people are horrified by the process, it has many advantages. Messages are consistent. Speakers/sources are handpicked for credibility, ability to talk, and relevance. All the messages have been pre-screened by legal teams, reducing risk. It's less likely that the exec will over-commit us, say something incorrect about a feature/benefit, or go off-topic. And the investment in marketing is maximized. And that's good for the company.
Re:His Name is "Michal" (Score:5, Informative)
eim.doc had hilarious references to "the Digital Nervous System" all over it, which had been deleted and replaced with more down-to-earth language.
From PrintCluster.doc:
From LaMagnaBio.doc:
From XO_final.doc:
(The press release appears to have been published without fact-checking.)
Mastek EPM.doc is HUGE and has all sorts of junk in it.
Re:If only... (Score:2, Informative)
The change tracking feature in Word is a nightmare. Which particular smart monkey thought it would be a good idea to turn it on by default?
Hidden Data Removal Tool (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Pining... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't hate MS, and this isn't "bashing", ... (Score:1, Informative)
Making fun of someone isn't hating them - my brother/cousins/best friends and I joke with each other about lots of stuff, if you get my drift?
JR in WV
Re:OpenOffice.org can't read them :( (Score:2, Informative)