Microsoft has a knack for choosing (and approving) the most boneheaded PR stints in the business... do they pay companies for this nonsense or do they just come up with it themselves?
In a nutshell, the campaign is "Watch us humiliate you and the phone you are spending a lot of your hard-earned money on." Why would anyone think that making consumers feel bad is going to lead them to having the warm, fuzzy feelings necessary to buy their product?
Last year's marketing for Windows Phone was awful because it didn't show the phone. Show the phone! It looks great. Tell consumers why they should want it. Not "it does what your phone does, just a bit faster in rigged competitions." Show it working with Xbox. With Hotmail. Show its hubs. "Ever wonder what Dave is doing? On Facebook? On Foursquare? On Twitter? Now you know."
Apple and Google keep knocking their campaigns out the park because they're built on honesty. Microsoft's campaigns are built on gimmicks and bullshit, and it shows.
Absolutely. The idea is just asking for trouble - there will always be at least some dude who feels that he was treaded unfairly and reallies up the internets. Plus I am not sure how important the "speed" factor for most users really is. There are the fuzzy Apples, the Androids of freedom, the business berrys, but I am not sure if speed is an adequate positioning.
Emphasizing speed misses qualities people actually love about Windows Phone 7 by miles. Only someone who is disconnected from or unfamiliar with the product will come up with stuff like that.
There is the stark and fresh design that (independently of whatever merits it might have) makes other mobile operating systems look old. There is the cohesiveness of the experience that even makes iOS look like it doesn’t know what it wants to be. There is the integration with Facebook that makes the phone personal without having to do anything†.
All those are things actual people praised about Windows Phone 7. Not speed in some highly constrained scenarios.
—
† If you use Facebook a lot. This might shock some people on HN, but most people who also can buy a smartphone do.
Can you be more specific? I found Windows Phone 7 to be terrible as in worse than Android, iPhone, and Blackberry bad. The tile interface falls down vary quickly and the app store is a ghost town.
There is a lot I don't like about Windows 7 phones but I am going to stick with the tile interface because it's the most obviously bad design.
Smooth scrolling looks cool, but locating something in the middle of a long list is much easier with separate pages. Which is not such a big deal, but tiles take up more space than the old button interface so you don't get to display a lot of them at the same time.
Basicly, 2 tiles wide * 4 tiles tall = at most 8 per tiles page. Sliding up and down one page works fine, but what if you want 17 tiles? you now slide a little and look for what you want to hit which you can't do with muscle memory. Compare with both iPhone and Android which fit 20 apps per page just fine no scrolling required.
As to updates, texts, email, phone calls have value. Knowing what temperature is is right now in two city's at the same time is practically pointless. As in how often do you want this vs. the actual forecast over some period of time?
PS: And I don't say this as someone that hates MS. I am a C# developer, with an MSDN subscription who like a lot of what they have been up to recently. I even liked Vista on good hardware, but I just think there phone OS is terrible.
The "speed" idea came from an older ad campaign which kindof made more sense. It basically said "get off your phone and spend more time with the people around you." So having a quick phone was positioned as a way to be more engaged in life.
Interesting. I can see that working but they would need to hammer that message much more consistently. Plus this should be really hard to get across as most people's experience with the Microsoft brand might be originating from desktop software/OS. And the experiences from that area are most likely contradicting the efforts of developing a "speedmaster" position.
Just as bad, all of their exercises seem to draw on some archaic 2008 mentality, where hammering out an SMS on your Blackberry the fastest makes you cool, and the idea of tweeting or posting to Facebook twenty times a day seems like the wave of the future. I can't imagine any of these being selling points.
The great thing about the challenge is that it is a realistic example of something you'd want to do with your phone. Why, I'm planning on visiting two different cities for my next vacation.
It's handy if you live in a place where the weather at home is significantly different than the weather where you spend a lot of time (Michigan and New York state have this due to the Great Lakes weather patterns).
When I'm sitting at work 20 miles south of my home, it's quite common for my home to be getting a major storm and my work to be bright and sunny. The differences can be more severe on further trips (going to visit my family 150 miles north or south).
With this I agree. While I think the point of "Windows Phone does things faster" is true for some sets of "faster", "faster" needs to be clearly defined as "not taking up your time" as opposed to actually running faster. "At a glance" might be the correct phrasing, the live tiles show you the information you need without needing to open the app.
That being said, I was merely replying to the OP's assertion that knowing the weather in two places at once isn't a good use case. It's no different than having clocks for two timezones.
Agreed and understandable. For years Microsoft has had to sell product upgrades that weren't needed by most users. There wasn't much new to show so all they've had has been gimmicks, fud, and bs. It's in their marketing DNA at this point.
It sounds to me like all of the contests were set to be won by preconfiguration, not phone speed. Having two live-tiles already set up with the winning condition, known in advance only by the employee is hardly a contest.
They didn't just not want to pay out. They likely didn't even know how. It was never even considered a possibility.
There is also a post by someone that 'tied' and then went to win on the next turn, even though their own terms of the contest state that in the event of a tie, the customer wins.
I too took on the challenge. Which was to post a message to facebook and email the same message to myself as well. Microsoft phone has a me tile, that posts to social media through windows live. Which is connected to your other social media networks such as Facebook, twitter and linked in. However, it does not email you. The guy argued that posting a status to windows live did the same thing. It does not, and therefore I lost.
But a few said they were able to win a gift certificate, like this person:
The first challenge was to find a five star restaurant in the area. I used my voice feature to search Google and yelled got it. Right when I said got it the employee was naming a restaurant and said we tied...So the second one was find a movie time for a movie playing in the theater at Tysons Corner. I used my voice to text feature again to search Google and found a time. This time there were like 3 other employees around and one of them said, "Dude, he got it." The manager eventually came out with my $100 gift card. They have it all set up on their phone to just click a button and the answer pops up. For some reason, the movie application took longer to load then normal which is why I won.
How exactly does these work? Are the competitor only told the rules (what you should actually do) just at the time and not allowed to make any preparation. While the windows phone is prepared specifically for that task? (I'd imagine showing 2 separate weather apps in the homescreen isn't something the average windows phone will be prepared for. Or the ones I saw certainly didn't)
There needs to be a public apology over this. Maybe I am too naive, but it's disheartening that Microsoft would use such shady advertising tactics. I am sure that employees were not allowed to actually award participants any money. If this instruction did not come down from corporate, it probably originated from a manager with a desire to impress the higher-ups.
After you say you won but were told you lost, 'I was then asked to snap a photo in front of a sign that read along the lines of “My Android was smoked by Windows Phone” before leaving the store.'
I didn't write this post. I added quotes around the title to try to distinguish this point.
That said, I agree. The OP commented on the reddit thread for this[1], which is where I found this before posting it to HN, and said that he took the picture because he had signed something agreeing to be used in advertising. Other commenters pointed out that Microsoft had broken the agreement already so he was under no obligation to comply.
Without having read the rules, which may list specific obligations, my reaction is that I would have told them that they were perfectly welcome to use whatever footage or photos they had taken during the event, but that there was no way I would pose for them after they refused to admit I'd won.
"Other commenters pointed out that Microsoft had broken the agreement already so he was under no obligation to comply."
Additionally, it would have turned into a way worse PR fiasco if in any way they tried to force him to comply. So legally and practically, nothing would have happened.
But how much more fun would it be to get profiled as a "loser", then show people this story. The employees were dumb to even ask: "let's see how much salt we can rub into this".
Following a twitter link involves copying the url, pasting it to the address bar, backspacing the "#!/" and adding "m." before twitter.com, because twitter's dumb hashbang scheme can't deal with noscript. Reading the tl;dr is much faster!
Some generic company apologist, unrelated to the events in question, (kind of) apologized. Until the manager in question who is actually responsible apologies, I don't see why that should count for anything. This is becoming a depressingly common pattern, big company screws up then someone completely unrelated offers a generic apology while the people actually responsible never say anything. If the apology isn't from the someone involved in the screw-up then it doesn't count.
And while we're busy apologizing, perhaps the person responsible for this stupid PR event should apologies to Microsoft for further damaging an already tarnished brand.
Ben Rudolph isn't "[s]ome generic company apologist, unrelated to the events in question" - he's one of the guys behind the Smoked By Windows Phone promotion.[1]
Seems to me the MS employee was cheating to begin with by choosing a task the phone was already configured for that is not a normal use. The guy even realized this at that moment when he felt he won out of pure luck. The challenge might as well have been "let's see who can display a logo of a Microsoft product on the screen first".
Still can't get used to these Microsoft Stores. I should probably get over it, but every time time I see one, it strikes me that they're copying Apple in a really lame way.
Visiting UVillage in Seattle is bizarre. You get the Apple Store that we all know. And you get the Sony Style store which is like the Apple Store but overcomplicated and weird in that Sony way, with 3-D TVs and pink Memory Sticks. And now we have the Microsoft Store, directly across the parking lot from Apple, with exactly the same floorplan and layout, but made with chintzier materials and a distracting video wall and Surface table locked on to a nonsensical tower defense game. It's like Windows incarnate: an ugly copy of Apple design, with no comprehension of why the Apple design works.
Google should open a store too, and fill it with a bunch of free toys and cover the walls with third-party ads.
Google would have to open several different stores. They are all slightly different as the interior designer sees fit, and the plans for each are all several years outdated. Each store is several different stories tall, but some sections have been roped off and are in the process of being demolished--even though some people liked those parts. All the employees ask if you know other people who have been to the store, even though you don't use the Google store enough to care. Occasionally sales reps walk up to you and ask you if you want to buy a product tangentially related to something you were just thinking about (how did they know?); all you can do is shake your head and walk away until the next salesperson comes up to you. Overall you get the feeling that you'd rather be in and out of the store as quickly as possible.
Apple would not have a contest. They would say. This is our product. We think it's awesome. You should think it's awesome too. If you don't want to buy it, don't.
They wouldn't hold cheesy PR stunts to try and "prove" how much better they are.
I do recall a lot of aggrieved Windows fanboys complaining about them – and each time concluding that the problem was failing to understand the priorities of average users or how badly the traditional PC market had failed the average user.
The situation is quite similar today with spec-obsessed Android reviewers failing to understand why everyone else is buying iPhones because most people just don't care about an extra 100Mhz or .3" screen size difference when the trade-off is a carrier-mangled UI or worse apps.
It can't go well in the age of the Internet. This is the top story on a couple of sites I read. All it would take is for the mainstream (non-tech) press to pick it up to create some real bad publicity.
The funny trivia is that Microsoft's store is almost exactly in front of the Apple Store. The previous picture in the album was taken from that Apple Store a couple seconds earlier.
Can't say the ability to see 2 cities weather at the same time has even been important in my choice of phone. These should really be based on things people are actually considering when buying a phone otherwise they seem really pointless.
I'm not certain how one would gain sufficient attention/interest to cause an effective response, but IIRC (and IANAL) such contests typically have rather strict laws to follow; the foremost but not sole reason being, to avoid being categorized as gambling. Another being to avoid being used or misused as a mechanism to distribute payments to favored parties (one reason for the ubiquitous disclaimers that employees of company XYZ are ineligible to participate).
If they are not adhering to the rules that define their contest, they may be at risk of some significant criminal infractions.
You think that perhaps they get to keep the quota of laptops that have not been won?
I know if I was working in one of those stores an awful lot of my friends would be smoking the windows phone... sorry, ahem, not friends, I meant "random strangers that I have never met before, isn't that right"...
While what you say is accurate, its misleading. The reviews were accurate, and favorable. They just weren't told it was Vista (iirc, they were told it was the next version).
All Microsoft contests are like that, just promotional. They choose the winner according to what they think will look better for Microsoft itself.
I participated in the Imagine Cup a few years ago when I was finishing college and our project was technically light-years ahead of the others. We got only the 3rd place. Two ridiculous web app-like gimmicks were 1st and 2nd. Oh and the guy in 5th place clearly deserved the 2nd place.
Even though I knew what it would be like beforehand, I have to admit I didn't anticipate getting screwed so badly. Our project was so cool there was no way it couldn't win, right? apparently not, Microsoft has no shame. It left a bitter aftertaste. On the other hand, I liked the 3rd place prize better than the 1st prize :)
¿? I don't want you to sympathise or comment on my case, why would I?. I'm just saying that's how any Microsoft contest works, they use people and when things don't turn out the exact way Microsoft wants they screw them.
My point is this is not an isolated case, it's Microsoft policy.
In a nutshell, the campaign is "Watch us humiliate you and the phone you are spending a lot of your hard-earned money on." Why would anyone think that making consumers feel bad is going to lead them to having the warm, fuzzy feelings necessary to buy their product?
Last year's marketing for Windows Phone was awful because it didn't show the phone. Show the phone! It looks great. Tell consumers why they should want it. Not "it does what your phone does, just a bit faster in rigged competitions." Show it working with Xbox. With Hotmail. Show its hubs. "Ever wonder what Dave is doing? On Facebook? On Foursquare? On Twitter? Now you know."
Apple and Google keep knocking their campaigns out the park because they're built on honesty. Microsoft's campaigns are built on gimmicks and bullshit, and it shows.