Microsoft’s “Scroogled” campaign just the beginning, kitchen sink on the way
There is a man behind the scenes pushing this campaign, and he is not some Madison Avenue type from New York. Mark Penn is his name, and his background is in political polling, campaigning and analyzing data to the nth-degree. Mr. Penn gained notoriety in Washington, DC circuits by organizing destructive efforts against enemies of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was instrumental in President Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996. Very few political relationships last for any long period of time, and in the lens of that reality, Penn’s strategy is not for everyone.
The “Scroogled” campaign is only one piece of the strategy, but it is the most overt swing at Google search and its shopping service. Penn is also behind the blind side-by-side comparisons that have popped up, challenging people to pick the best search for them.
How does a political operative translate to a marketing campaign? Quite well actually. Penn was made head of Microsoft’s “strategic and special projects” in August and his goal is to trip up Google at every opportunity. When those opportunities arise, the plan is then to exploit those potential gaffes by way of a flame-throwing commercial in mere hours. It gives Microsoft a political nimbleness that is not often seen in such strategic efforts like the one underway now, Windows 8, Windows Phone 8, unified experience, search, and up soon will be the next Office.
This effort reinforces what we ostensibly knew was coming from Microsoft. Bill Gates said it himself, “People will be pretty amazed about the energy Microsoft’s putting behind this new wave of products.” That includes the marketing behind these new products. Love it or hate it, Microsoft is pulling out all the stops.
The first fruit of this fast moving team is the “Scroogled” campaign which was pieced together very quickly after Google made changes to its search results in its shopping service. They followed a political model which involved polling and quick production of a response to get the message out to users and potential customers.
Microsoft has played hardball before, notably going after Gmail. A company spokesman did admit however that Microsoft did not do too well challenging those “Get a Mac” commercials that Apple ran. As Bill Gates said though, there is a new energy to drive these new products and services, and Mark Penn is part of that drive.
To Microsoft’s credit, the company does not need to outright topple Google in a blitz of ads and campaigns. All Microsoft needs is to plant a seed of doubt, and results will root from there. If that requires a kitchen sink, we are sure that Microsoft has more than one.
sources: The New York Times via Neowin
photo: The New York Times
27 November Scroogled! Microsoft hits Google below the belt again
21 November Microsoft selling real anti-Google ‘Scroogled’ tees and mugs
16 October Scroogled ad campaign works; 53% of viewers have new feelings toward Bing
10 August Microsoft once again goes on the offensive against getting Scroogled
10 April Microsoft keeps Scroogled fire burning: new ad criticizes Google Play store privacy
11. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
The only reason as to why Google never retaliate or make mudslinging campaigns about competing products/services is pretty obvious to anyone that cares to think about it.
A.) Google don't want to put any light on the Microsoft campaigns that reveals the more shady side of Google's deceptive business ideology.
B.) Google want to keep up appearances as being "the do-no-evil Good Guy" even while actually being called out as being the real Bad Guy.
C.) *The most important one* Google do NOT want to make campaigns about competing products/services simply because they do NOT want people to know about Bing, Bing Maps, Office Web Apps, Office 365 or Windows Phone.
Why? Well, if people can't figure that out, they might as well not even bother having an opinion about this at all. The answer should be pretty obvious at this point.
13. tedkord (Posts: 4936; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
As someone who has used Bing and Bing navigation, I can assure you that Google has nothing to worry about with people being made aware of them - to put it bluntly, they both suck.
As far as evil, Google does have it's evil side - all major businesses do. But when compared to MS, well there's a reason MS was known as the evil empire...
18. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
You speak as a consumer, not as a business. Google don't look at Bing and Microsoft the way you do, because Google does business - they're not a consumer. And you got to be really biased or blindfolded to think that Google isn't watching Microsoft's steps closely.
Just because Google has a search engine and map service that is in some areas better than Bing today, does not mean it's automatically going to stay that way forever. Google know this very well, seeing as they know who they're dealing with, while you obviously choose not to acknowledge it.
MySpace was a cool place too, care to do a sign-up there today? Or perhaps a new Hotmail account? Why not Yahoo..? Or perhaps buy a Symbian phone, or a Windows Mobile 6.x?
Wasn't Apple dead and gone, too? Until Microsoft loaned them the money to get back on their feet?
So, with those examples given - do you still honestly think Google don't care? YOU might be confusing Microsoft with some small-time player short of cash, power and services, but Google sure don't.
74. jamrockjones (Posts: 345; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)
"Google don't" ..... that's terrible grammar. Honestly you lost all validity after writing that. Sorry, it was bugging me, just had to point it out.
77. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
Not everyone is having English as their native language, bro. How many languages do you speak fluently without grammatical errors? Hmm?
"Honestly you lost all validity after writing that."
That sounds even more stupid than using a faulty grammar. Perhaps it was really the content of the comment that put you off, and not the grammar? Could be, could very well be ...
20. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
My point is: Things change, and has always done so throughout history. Microsoft was untouchable, yet things changed. Yahoo was king, yet things changed. MySpace had 300 million+ users, then things changed.
Now people think Apple and Google are untouchable, but why should they be any different? Every brand got their loyal customers, but most people just don't give a F.
29. MeoCao (unregistered)
Of course things will change, nothing lasts forever.
But Google is a very young company and it will be at the top for a very long time for sure.
Yahoo is young too but they are on decline, that's simply b-c they have to compete with Google.
Google has unique strength that guarrantees their success: ability to attract and use talents. That's why Google is so creative.
40. Edmund (Posts: 656; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
As someone who uses Yahoo search, Nokia Maps, Office, Outlook.com, X-Box Live, and IE10, I can assure you that google has a lot to worry about
49. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
I'd read the article if it wasn't so long
58. tedkord (Posts: 4936; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Of course things can change. But today, December 16, 2012, if 100 people tried Bing or Bing Nav, 97 would be back to Google immediately.
19. MeoCao (unregistered)
MS better have good products before attacking competition. Bing sucks so what's the point of paying so much money promoting it?
And Bing is a copy of Google Search and has the same business model.
so this is high hypocricy from MS as usual.
22. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
Google was a copy of Altavista and all the other large search engines before it, so what's your point? It's not as if Google came up with a new market all by themselves.
Although Bing too has advertisements, they are not using ads to the same extent as Google - as you would clearly see if you look into the Scroooogled campaign material.
Microsoft's business don't revolve around advertising and privacy-intrucive user profiling - because Microsoft got products and services that comes at a purchase costs that PAYS for the other Microsoft services you use for free. Google has no such products, and therefor relies entirely on you being willing to shell (and sell) out your personal information and being shown ads everywhere instead.
96% of Google's total profits comes from their advertising business, so how do you make that into being the same business model as Microsoft's, outside Bing? :-)
There's a reason as to why there's almost no ads at all on Outlook.com - and NO privacy-intrusion scanning of the emails "in order to serve up personalized ads". Because Microsoft don't have to - they get their money from elsewhere. Windows, Office, Azure, etc. But Google don't.
28. MeoCao (unregistered)
One question comes up: why Google is successful and others are not?
Google has 1 revolutionary idea: targetted ads.
MS is pure COPYCAT, it does not offer anything radically better.
Yes there is difference in MS and Google business models: they have to earn money somehow but what is the bad influence on people lives that "privacy-intrucive user profiling" has?
I think most people prefer this to paying their hard earned money for superb Google's services.
I know MS loses big on search and advertising, but that simply is b-c they can't compete and nothing else.
MS is a giant COPYCAT: XBox, Zune, Bing, WP... you name it.
38. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
Tell me again, what product is Xbox copying? And Windows Phone? And Bing? Not even Zune was a copy, it was just an answer to the iPod. When you say "copy", you seem to automatically think that any competing product is a copy - even though they happen to operate and look very different, just because they are in the same category? Perhaps you should take down that pointing finger of yours, because Google is just as much of a copycat in that case. They have not been first with Anything, since all the products they serve have been available by other companies before them. They even bought a few instead of building them themselves.
Google is big because they can get away with releasing half-baked betaproducts, simply because they do not charge money for them. It has nothing to do with the products being better, because face it - they not always are. They are just "without purchase cost", and endorsed by everyones favorit house pet "Google". Instant success. But it makes a lot of competitors go out of business along the way, to sustain the monopoly Google is sucessfully trying to build. But people don't mind as long as it's not Microsoft doing it, which is clear to see in every Microsoft/Google related comment section. Trading one monopoly for another is OK, because "it's only Google". And Google is not a stock traded company responsible only to their shareholders and investors, right? :-)
Get off your "MS evil copycat" 1999 bulls**t. Microsoft spends billions of dollars on research every year, more than Google and more than Apple. And if you think Google is not copying/following Microsoft (and others), how come all their successful products not bought from other companies are direct answers/competiting services to Microsoft's most successful products? Hotmail/Gmail. Office/Google Docs+Apps. Internet Explorer/Chrome. MSN Maps (and earlier)/Google Maps. MSN Messenger/Gtalk etc. Windows Mobile/Android. Windows/ChromeOS. And so on and so forth. Even Google's search engine is a rip-off from Altavista and earlier.
Point is - Microsoft was around long before Google. And Google don't come up with ideas on their own any more than Microsoft do.
42. MeoCao (unregistered)
MS the COPYCAT:
Bing: Google Search
WP: iOS and Android
It's understandable that sometimes a company has to learn from competitors but MS only waits for a big successful ideas to copy w/o any substantial improvement.
Google is different, it's a young company so it benefits from the old system, but it's different from MS: it's creative.
Google is so creative it has to pay some price as innovating is not easy, but the world is much better with Google.
48. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
IE and Netscape battled hard back in the 90's. How about Chrome? Wasn't that invented 15 years later..?
Xbox and PS copied Nintendo as being home entertainment tv gaming consoles, but still none of them are the same. They got different approach, uses different technology and cater very different ecosystems. Not even their online gaming services or offerings are the same.
Zune and iPod copied earlier portable MP3 players in the MP3 prime time, so there's no point in doing that comparison. None of them were 1st, they just jumped in to capitalize on the lucrative moment.
Bing is MSN Search and Windows Live Search re-branded, and has very little to do with Google since Google was not the biggest during that time. MSN Search goes back to 1998, at a time when Altavista ruled the world and had Microsoft as partner.
Finally, Windows Phone is the least copycat of ANY mobile OS out there. It looks like no other, and if you try to clam it still does - you're straight-up lying. Microsoft had Windows Mobile (apps and all) long before Android was introduced, and although Windows Phone is a clean cut codewise from the aging Windows Mobile - it's certainly not Microsoft's 1st entrance into the smartphone world.
So what you really wanted to say was that Android copied Windows Mobile, and that Google copied everyone else, wasn't it? :-)
I'm tired of this. Google have made good services, but I'm sick of people treating them as some holy entity that should get a friendly pass in all areas of technology. As if they can do no wrong, and never follows.
People sadly seem to know as little about Microsoft as they know about the real Google.
62. joey_sfb (Posts: 3003; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
I just sick of M$ silly campaign, Its attack on competitor is unnecessary. If your service is good, good words will get around and people will start using it.
66. MeoCao (unregistered)
Your still can't see the point here: It's no shame to learn from the competition, but you must add your own improvement.
Look at everything that Google did, they did not simply copied, they made things better
Look at MS did: they simply copied things w/o any improvement (Xbox may be a rare exception). And that's shame for a big company like MS.
50. Dastrix (Posts: 596; Member since: 23 Nov 2012)
So what's your point? Are you objecting to the idea of competition and diversity? Of course Xbox came after PS, but that does not necessarily mean that it's a 'copycat' as you'd call it. Monopoly is good. Diversity, however, is much better. Learn to appreciate competition.
67. MeoCao (unregistered)
My advise is to read carefully and understand what was written before lecturing to others
Look at my answer above.
72. Dastrix (Posts: 596; Member since: 23 Nov 2012)
Clearly, your definition of 'different' sounds eerily similar to 'similar.' Sorry buddy, but there's a fine line between the two, and 'COPYCAT' isn't the only word in the dictionary. I'd suggest you brush up on your vocabulary before you bark.
And, MY advice to you is to carefully pay attention to your grammar before enlightening others. You're using Chrome, right? Unless you're illiterate, it would seem that you need a better browser, buddy.
Your response to my comment is better suited to YOUR actual situation since you couldn't quite assimilate Henrik's discussion. You're THE one missing the point. Let me break it down for you. Whatever point you're trying to prove is subjective. Please stand from an objective perspective. It would be unproductive to have a biased discussion. Innovation is a broad term. Google is, indeed, an innovative company, in terms of introducing an open-source OS. Microsoft brought along a panoply of features unique to the Windows Phone ecosystem. When companies resort to competition, they certainly have a motive for doing so. Innovation is one of them. Microsoft is as innovative as Google.
AGAIN, monopoly is good. Diversity, however, is much better. Learn to appreciate competition.
59. haseebzahid (Posts: 1831; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
you knowwhat Android is copy of Symbian & IOS get over ur false and foolish blamegame
54. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
The whole Scroogled thing was practically built by Microsoft from the start.
Google Shopping wasn't based on ads until anti-trust suits started forming against Google's search expansion -- anti-trust suits endorsed by Microsoft. The solution was to change the service from a shopping search engine to a set of ads. And then Microsoft attacked.
Google gets screwed either way.
39. nnaatthhaannx2 (Posts: 820; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
I don't think there's that many MS fanboys.
43. MetroPhase (Posts: 12; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)
The truth is MS "fanboys" rarely have time to be unproductive; we can't all become moguls if we're sitting behind screens slinging rubbish.
2. SamsungFan (Posts: 201; Member since: 16 Apr 2012)
Do your thing but there is no use. Google will still be the number one
3. XPERIA-KNIGHT (unregistered)
8. eisenbricher (Posts: 971; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
MS has always been a dirty player in the game. No matter whether they win or loose, nobody feels sympathy for MS. Also, nobody will criticize them, as being rude has always been a part of MS' personality.
Like a stereotype villain in some mainstream movie.
71. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 864; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
He looks like he never had conceptual sex in his life and sounds like it too.
4. cripton805 (Posts: 942; Member since: 18 Mar 2012)
Micosoft, focus on your products instead of paying for this troll.
You can quote that PHONEARENA and give these trolls a taste of their own medicine.
5. Kuherrn (Posts: 16; Member since: 09 Nov 2012)
Why can't Microsoft appreciate competition and not bash others. Let the consumers make their choice based on what products Microsoft, Google and Apple puts out. Correct me if I am wrong but Google so far has never tried to disrespect or bash other companies....
14. tedkord (Posts: 4936; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
It's easy to take the high road when you're at the head of the class, and looks tacky to do otherwise. Let Google fall behind and they'll launch attack strategies, to.
21. shuaibhere (Posts: 1528; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Is google attacking facebook for G+??????? I think no....so you are wrong ....
23. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)
What would they say, numbnut? That Facebook is doing user profiling and collecting personal information, when Google is doing the Exact same thing?
For Christ's sake, Google's entire business empire revolves around breaking your privacy down in order to be able to target you with more and more ads from their REAL customers - the advertisers. The advertisers who pay for your "free" services so you can then go around crying about other websites charging for stuff instead of selling you out.
Welcome back to reality :-)
24. shuaibhere (Posts: 1528; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Your comment is nothing related to my comment.....I agree with you....but i feel safe under google than anyone.......
30. PackMan (Posts: 277; Member since: 09 Mar 2012)
I would rather have personalised Google ads than facebo ok's sponsered ads trying to shove politcal agendas down my throat.
44. roscuthiii (Posts: 1832; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Since when has Google ever claimed otherwise? They've made no qualms that there business model revolves around advertising.
It's a simple cost/benefit analysis for the consumer. Free services in exchange for "John Doe bought a 'Franchise' brand coffee at the intersection of Number and Letters streets". Many find this acceptable. If anyone is that concerned about personal privacy, they probably shouldn't be paying for anything with a credit/debit card since financial institutions also resell consumer data as a secondary market. Did you really think Microsoft, et al. aren't taking advertising dollars? That's just naive. I sure do wish I lived in your reality.
47. ytja12 (Posts: 5; Member since: 09 Jul 2012)
i think your the one need to wake up...this is our reality everywhere you look or turn today your privacy is never yours its just an illusion that you have one in the first place...and dont think MS is not doing the same thing or any other company...
56. Zero0 (Posts: 583; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
I get amazing services in exchange for my personal data to be broken down by a computer algorithm. Services such as Google Now wouldn't be possible without this.
And there is nothing saying that Microsoft doesn't do any of this stuff, either. For all we know, it goes on in the background of Windows. Such is the magic of proprietary software.
64. carlosechev07 (Posts: 39; Member since: 16 Oct 2012)
So whats the problem if exists a lot of advertisers that pay for "my free services", thanks to this business model the entire world have the opportunity to enjoy powerful services and benefits "absolutely free".
Microsoft is marketing very bad, it's a tech company that is incompetent in many technology fields, that's the reason why is recurring to this embarrassing strategies.
Sorry about Microsoft, he can't offers the same google products quality, and be infamous is the only tool they have now..
70. EclipseGSX (Posts: 1611; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
I like it being stolen, Google knows more about me than i know myself
25. wendygarett (unregistered)
I love Yahoo :)
7. Rocksteady (unregistered)
Microsoft, Stop acting like a silly spoiled child, haven't you learned the lesson from apple's history?!
and mark penn, stop poking Google, or they will poke you back,, right in your fat a*s.
9. Dr.Phil (Posts: 915; Member since: 14 Feb 2011)
Whether you like it or not, Google has become a household word. You don't hear really anyone say "let me Bing that". It would take a massive push by Microsoft to get people to not only change where they do their searches or shopping on, but also become an everyday word that people will use. I mean honestly, how many people think to type in "bing.com" into their URL? I know I rarely think about it. Typing in "google.com" has become so ingrained into my mind that I don't even think about it, I just do it.
10. XPERIA-KNIGHT (unregistered)
exactly......its what you expect to do when you use the internet....plain and simple.
Its an everyday thing.
37. Edmund (Posts: 656; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
BS. Google became popular because it got away with s**t that Microsoft couldn't; For example, automatically appearing (upon installation) on the start page of third party browsers like Firefox, Chrome, and Opera.
12. RapidCat (Posts: 351; Member since: 12 Jun 2012)
they both is same
no winner here
15. tedkord (Posts: 4936; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The winner is the consumer. Selling those ads means we no longer have to pay for a nearly unlimited email account. We get a myriad of free services and apps. Same principal as network TV or radio.
16. ReddD (Posts: 37; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
MS go and fire this Penn guy, like he should have been after the #Droidrage failure, and use the money on getting a better design team. Then you will see a turn around.
26. Shino (banned) (Posts: 196; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
Basically every Microsoft product now is better than any Google's one. WinPhone, Windows, Bing, Hotmail. They just need better marketing.
32. joey_sfb (Posts: 3003; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Good! Keep telling yourself that. We are idiot not to choose M$ over google. We like to pay xbox 360 gold membership in order to have multi player option which are free over at PS3 and PC. M$ is a rotten brand and enough people are burnt to stay away from them.
68. jroc74 (Posts: 4934; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I still use Hotmail for nostalgia reasons and being lazy. GMail is better, faster. Bing....no. Just no.
31. rex1213 (Posts: 77; Member since: 29 Jul 2011)
Because that is Microsoft as we know them. Bullying Apple, bullying Google, bullying just about everyone in the market to get its products noticed and eventually become dominant in that space. Even if you look back in the past, history dictates the same.
But don't get me wrong though. Their new products are good (WP8, Windows 8). It's just that, I don't think there still is a need to pull some dirty tactics considering their products now are FINALLY competitive.
34. Edmund (Posts: 656; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
Educating consumers is a dirty tactic ??? Since when