You wouldn't know it from this picture, but this guy has cahones. Big brass ones made by Belgian bell-founders. Sure, he won't touch casino door knobs (even though I tried to convince him brass is naturally antibiotic); but beneath his life insurance salesman facade there is strength of character.
I writing in reference to Rory's post concerning his crusade to save Microsoft. If you haven't read it you should, and try to pay more attention in the future. His basic argument is that Microsoft leader's perceive things in primarily a revenue based/data-driven approach. This is reflected in the way they make decisions and even in there product packaging and marketing. Now if you are a big corporation, making data-driven decisions is a crucial part of being successful. You have to be able to react to the competition and emerging marketplace by analyzing information and using it to guide your decisions. Microsoft makes great products and tools, of which I am a huge fan. I even managed to work for Microsoft for a few years, and I consider myself very lucky to have had that opportunity. But like Rory, I see my stock values plummeting even as Microsoft manages to increase its revenue. If we assume that stock values can in some way be tied to public perception of a company, then we can take this as an ominous indicator. Why is a company that every year increases revenue and makes great software taking such a hit in its stock values? Rory seems to indicate it has very little to do with what Microsoft does but is more about how Microsoft is perceived.
Now, there are are other mitigating factors like the "If we can't make money on our own, lets sue someone to generate revenue" mentality that seems to be ever increasing in companies that can't be creative on their own. It seems not a month goes by where some company or nation-state has decided to sue Microsoft on some pretext, and being constantly embroiled in lawsuits tends to have a negative impact stock values. But for the most part I agree with Rory, in that people outside of Microsoft have been indoctrinated to believe Microsoft is the root of all evil because they have managed to be successful.
A few examples
So making great products/software is not enough for Microsoft. Rory argues that shaping the public's perceptions is absolutely necessary to the future success of Microsoft. Microsoft needs to do something in parallel to making innovative software that changes the public's opinion. They can no longer live by a "Build it and they will come" strategy, as there are a variety of voices telling people that they should reject Microsoft.
Pure Evangelism is Rory's answer to the image problem Microsoft is facing. Time, money, and a lot of thought needs to be spent on how to change people's perceptions concerning Microsoft. Microsoft may not see a direct connection to the bottom line, but I agree with Rory that if they wake up and address this problem they will see positive changes. Rory didn't give any specifics on how to evangelize, so here are a few ideas I had...
Some ideas off the top of my head
- Learn from the competitors. Leverage the marketing talent you have invested in your XBox/gaming division to make Microsoft products more soulful and appealing on a visceral level.
- Provide very cheap or free entry level tools/products to compete in the open source space. Microsoft has already made great strides in this area by providing the Express line of its Visual Studio and SQL products and tools like WiX and the .NET Framework.
- Make a commitment to evangelism projects that may not generate money but will foster community/public opinion in Microsoft's favor.
Evangelism is a tricky proposition, and I don't believe that Microsoft's image crisis will be completely solved by just Microsoft. It will likely take an effort by Microsoft developers/users to create their own grass-roots movement that has been so successful in the open-source communities. If you have any idea's on how to improve public opinion, I look forward to hearing about them.
Evangelism Resources: