Wired and Channel 9
Last week, Wired published an article about Channel 9 at Microsoft, how it helped open up the company and increase dialogue with customers and developers. The article looked at the story behind the site and the company’s other efforts to open up. As a case study for opening up a corporate culture and some of the challenges faced when doing such a change it makes a fascinating read. But what makes it more interesting is the insight into the processes involved in granting such an interview and how a large company manages the interactions with the press. All this came about because of a simple mistake with an email. Fred Vogelstein,, the author of the piece, accidentally received the dossier that MS and their PR company Waggoner Edstrom had pulled together about the story and the interview process.
Someone at Microsoft unintentionally emailed me the confidential dossier the company keeps on reporters writing stories about it (presumably a common practice among big corporations). My file ran to 5,500 words and included all the angles I had been pursuing (along with suggested responses to my questions), the people outside the company they thought I had talked to, detailed background on Wired and how it has covered Microsoft, and notes on me and my interviewing style. “We need to reinforce with Fred that these efforts [Channels 9 and 10] are a natural extension of the company’s DNA,” the file reads. “Microsoft has been using a wide variety of communications mechanisms to reach out to developers since the days of yore This is simply the latest manifestation of those efforts.” The irony is thick. While working with me on a story about its newfound openness, Microsoft and its PR agency were furiously scurrying behind the scenes to control the message. One thing about transparency is clear: It’s harder than it looks.
This then led to a series of blog posts from the various parties involved explaining the different points of view about why such a thing was done.
Fred is up first, with his reaction to reading the dossier about him and his interviews.
But after I was done reading all 5,500 words I no longer felt elated at the prospect of an interesting scoop. I felt downright peculiar. I’ve been a journalist for more than 20 years and always assumed that the people I interview do as much homework on me as I do on them. So the existence of a document like this didn’t surprise me. But that still didn’t make it any easier to read lines like, “It takes him a bit to get his point across so try to be patient.” I know my long-windedness drives my wife nuts occasionally. I didn’t know it had become an issue for Microsoft’s pr machine too.
He’s right, there’s every reason why companies should do their homework when working with a journalist. But he was surprised at the number of people involved in managing the process, in taking notes, in speculating on motives and behaviours. And at the end of it, he’s not feeling too happy, feeling slightly manipulated.
Then there is Chris Anderson, Wired Editor, who made the decision to put the dossier online. Again, a feeling af manipulation, as he was wooed to get the story into the magazine.
By the way, as far as I can tell, everything in the memo is accurate. I also think the executives were very well served by the document; they did indeed stick to their message and they got pretty much the story they wanted. This was also, as it happens, the story I wanted–or was it just the story I thought I wanted because I was so effectively spun by Microsoft’s PR machine?
And from the other part of the debate, we have Frank Shaw from Waggener Edstrom explaining why such dossiers are put together. He describes the process of how all the information is put together and why they do so.
Seriously, in this case, the interests of a journalist and PR are totally aligned – a great interview is always the best possible outcome. And that doesn’t mean an interview where a spokesperson endlessly repeats key messages – that’s a loss. It’s an interview where the person is prepared to talk, has the relevant data at hand, understands the story premise and his/her role, and doesn’t waste time going over the same territory as a previous interview.
Everything is done to make the interview easier, to prevent repetition, to ensure the company has all its points put across. From his perspective, there’s nothing secret or confidential about the document, it just eases everything.
And finally, http://www.jeffsandquist.com/WiredMagazineArticleOnChannel9.aspx responds, as one of the people who supposedly wooed Chris.
There are a number of gems in this piece that talk about the traffic growth of Channel 9, the explosion of employee blogs at Microsoft and how it began. Unfortunately though attempts to invent tension that really wasn’t there. Transparency did take a huge leap forward via Channel 9 and blogging, but that is not where it all began, it had already started. Transparency is something that has been happening at Microsoft for a long time. Much of this work actually began all the way back on CompuServe forums where our employees began answering questions. Since then folks at Microsoft have been connecting with customers in any way they can. Employees have done so online, at our conferences, over lunch, through newsgroups, forums and today via blogs.
The comments and follow up post are well worth reading as well, showing the reactions that people can have to thinking they have been played.
So because of one mistake, the story changed into something else, into Microsoft still trying to control the story and Microsoft responding as to why they do it this way, to keep track of what is being said over a period of months. But the biggest takeaway - all the key players have blogs and have put their side of the story out there for you to make your own mind up. Now, that’s transparency.
Tags: channel9, microsoft, wiredRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Engaging the Customer, PR
0 opinions for Wired and Channel 9
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: