Posts
Microsoft is Not Making a Difference?
Microsoft is running a new ad campaign called I'm Making a Difference and there is something tricky about it. It promises to share "a portion" of the ad revenue from MSN messenger installations that will help support fighting AIDS or feeding the hungry through inserting a code in the user name, and start chatting. It just feels like they are trying to buy new users. Here's why:Firstly, it is a psychological game. Yes, it plays you by inferring if you do not use this, you don't have a heart. Never mind that some people prefer to donate dollars rather than cents, or some people prefer to use what they feel to be better clients. "But Microsoft is trying to help!" Then why don't they just donate? Well, actually, they do, but it is all tax write offs, or coupons or some other things. It doesn't cost them anything. Not even here. However, in this case they have tied the 'donation' to you using their services, making you 'responsible' for it. If you don't use their services (because, lets say you feel other services are superior), they will make the donation anyway. I mean, it is a tax write off.
Secondly, it gives you a false sense you are doing something big. Honestly, since when is chatting with friends doing anything more than maintaining said friendship? Think about it for a second; who gets what here? You get maintained friendship (assuming your friends fall for this too), which you can already get without Microsoft's services. The charity you pick allegedly (we will give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here) gets the money they would get anyway (again, it is a tax write off, and Microsoft likes to look good). Microsoft gets more users, and, presumably, more money from more users using. So if you don't use Microsoft's services, truthfully, only Microsoft loses out. Thus, only Microsoft gains here.
Thirdly, it challenges you to "put your money where your mouth is." This is a straw man argument and a non sequitur (for those who are lost by those terms, "straw man argument" means it appears to be a solid argument, but has no merit, and "non sequitur" means literally in Latin 'it does not follow' or, the sequence isn't correct). Chatting by Microsoft's services does not prove or disprove you are a nice or mean person, have or don't have a heart. Sadly, it does not mean you are doing anything more than falling for Microsoft's cheap marketing trick.
Honestly, Americans are truly making a difference, where it matters, without resorting to chatting.
So why not use Microsoft's chat? Well, a company that resorts to marketing gimmicks like this to try to win the hearts (and fingers) of people who otherwise aren't interested, obviously has something in mind other than competing fairly against their competition. If Microsoft wanted to get it's new services out, making them desirable to the users is a much better option. Instead they resort to marketing tricks to make you feel guilty that you aren't using their services.
Guilt is bad and should not be used as a way to compete.
OK, so maybe the argument isn't flawless, and maybe there is a lot left to be desired with it, but seeing a company attempting to play a guilt trip on otherwise smart people really torques me the wrong way. It did when I first saw the ads, and it does again over a month later when I again see the ads are still running.
This post was written by Justin Swatsenbarg from Tech and other things. If you are interested in contributing to the thinking process and become a guest writer on The Thinking Blog, find out more information here and be my guest!
Secondly, it gives you a false sense you are doing something big. Honestly, since when is chatting with friends doing anything more than maintaining said friendship? Think about it for a second; who gets what here? You get maintained friendship (assuming your friends fall for this too), which you can already get without Microsoft's services. The charity you pick allegedly (we will give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here) gets the money they would get anyway (again, it is a tax write off, and Microsoft likes to look good). Microsoft gets more users, and, presumably, more money from more users using. So if you don't use Microsoft's services, truthfully, only Microsoft loses out. Thus, only Microsoft gains here.Thirdly, it challenges you to "put your money where your mouth is." This is a straw man argument and a non sequitur (for those who are lost by those terms, "straw man argument" means it appears to be a solid argument, but has no merit, and "non sequitur" means literally in Latin 'it does not follow' or, the sequence isn't correct). Chatting by Microsoft's services does not prove or disprove you are a nice or mean person, have or don't have a heart. Sadly, it does not mean you are doing anything more than falling for Microsoft's cheap marketing trick.
Honestly, Americans are truly making a difference, where it matters, without resorting to chatting.
So why not use Microsoft's chat? Well, a company that resorts to marketing gimmicks like this to try to win the hearts (and fingers) of people who otherwise aren't interested, obviously has something in mind other than competing fairly against their competition. If Microsoft wanted to get it's new services out, making them desirable to the users is a much better option. Instead they resort to marketing tricks to make you feel guilty that you aren't using their services.
Guilt is bad and should not be used as a way to compete.
OK, so maybe the argument isn't flawless, and maybe there is a lot left to be desired with it, but seeing a company attempting to play a guilt trip on otherwise smart people really torques me the wrong way. It did when I first saw the ads, and it does again over a month later when I again see the ads are still running.
This post was written by Justin Swatsenbarg from Tech and other things. If you are interested in contributing to the thinking process and become a guest writer on The Thinking Blog, find out more information here and be my guest!
11 thoughts:
Ilker,
You've been tagged! :)
http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2007/06/tagged.html
Nimmy :)
All the same Microsoft wins. If we use the services they get new user. If we talk here about the campain they get pr. The guys do it right if we like it or not.
I have to say it is a bit troublesome that they want to work it this way, but, on the other hand, if it did/does mean more money for good things, well, everything benefits someone ... *shrug*
I have to agree with Web Urbanist. I know that corporations by their nature when left unchecked will take as much as they can...in most cases. At the same time, if they are doing something good, I think there may be worse offenders to have a problem with such as the whole big oil industry keeping alternative energy from emerging as fast as it should.
Good writing though!
cool...
http://www.wanaza.com
I still think it's better to have Microsoft donate part of the revenue and use that for advertising purposes than when they are not doing it. Why? Because Microsoft has very effective marketing anyway. The opportunities of utilizing small percentages of big revenue for good purposes is just not made use of enough today, and if Microsoft does it they actually put some kind of pressure on the competition "to be good too" and might even have some companies who don't do that start doing it just for marketing purposes - but really, once the money gets where it's supposed to be, the guy who has something to eat (or whatever else) doesn't care whether that money came from evil marketers or innocent angels.
I remember Fila's campaign that if you buy their shoes, you are saving lives. Aww -_- Because part of the sales of the shoes would be donated to the homeless. I think it was only 1 peso.
wouldn't this be the same as restaurants, convenient stores, grocery stores, etc. that claim that a certain percent of every sale goes to a charity?
I don't think it's reasonable to not use a certain company's services just because they use such a marketing technique.
I don't think you understand how 'tax-breaks' work. If you give a dollar, you don't have to pay taxes on the dollar. However, you still DON'T HAVE THE DOLLAR - you have nothing. If you had kept the dollar, not taken the tax break, and paid taxes, then you would end up with around 60 cents (depending on tax rates, etc.).
As you can see, even though Microsoft is getting some benefit from the tax-breaks, it still costs them money and they are still giving something.
Bill Gates does a lot more than almost anyone I have ever heard of for charities (including time, which many rich people do not give) and instead of critisizing Microsoft you should look at all the good they do.
I suspect MS is actually trying to do some good with their fortunes.
(See gatesfoundation.org)
I'm not a fan, I'm just saying.
Probably the company's spin doctors and marketing people have gotten a hand in there.
What do you think? Post your thoughts..