gapingvoid: "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards"

"microsoft repositions to kick ass"

Eric Karjaluoto has an excellent post on what he would do, if he were given the task of re-branding Microsoft:

I’d ask the team at Microsoft to ask some blunt questions about who they really are. I don’t mean the bullshit “mission statement” responses here either; I’m talking brutal honesty. From a peripheral standpoint, my nutshell response to this situation would be something like, “We’re the most powerful computing force on the planet, and we’re acting like a bunch of sissies.”

I find two lines in the last paragraph very telling:

Of course, none of this is going to happen. Microsoft is still a behemoth, and it’s not as though they are asking for my opinion.

And here, of course, is an opportunity for Microsoft to prove Eric wrong. Let's see if anyone inside Redmond sends him an e-mail. This for me goes back to what JP Rangaswami said a wee while ago:

People want Microsoft to change. That is the essence of what made the Blue Monster such a hit, it was a way of people outside Microsoft telling people in Microsoft of the intense need for change...

The more I get to know Microsoft, the truer this seems to be, both inside and outside the company.

[Thanks to Leah for the pointer.]

the new microsoft

[Cartoon added to The Blue Monster Series.]

re. rising above the clutter

[Click on image to enlarge/download/print etc. Licensing terms here.]

Like the Good Book says, "All is Vanity". From The Frontal Cortex:

The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle was a fancy grand-cru. The other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. Despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. The grand cru was "agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded," while the vin du table was "weak, short, light, flat and faulty". Forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was.

The one thing that separates human beings from other mammals is our capacity for metaphor i.e. the capacity to tell stories. These forty-odd "wine experts" were telling themselves a wine story. The molecules in the bottle didn't matter. What mattered was the narrative.

With hundreds and thousands of wine brands all telling the same story ["Our FAMILY has been making THIS kind of wine on THIS piece of LAND for THIS MANY generations yak ya yak..."] the only way we could get Stormhoek to rise above the clutter was to tell a different story altogether. Which in the end meant a rather unlikely cultural mash-up between a small South African vineyard and the US West Coast technology crowd, including Silicon Valley and Microsoft.

We've had some good results along the way, but the experiment is far from over yet...

[UPDATE] My Chicago friend, Vinny Warren left the following story in the comments below:

I worked in a bar in Ireland in my youth back in the 80s. There was a brewery sponsored inter-pub competition to see which bar could sell the most COLT 45 malt liquor which had just been introduced and was failing miserably. Malt Liquor in Ireland??

It was a very busy pub. So we switched the very popular Heineken taps over to the Colt 45 kegs towards closing time each night for a month.

We won the competition. The prize was a free trip to Spain.

And not a single punter ever complained about the taste of their Heineken!

steve clayton's new gig

[Click on image to enlarge/download/print etc. Licensing terms here.]

A couple for months ago at the Blue Monster Breakfast, I drew the cartoon above to illustrate Microsoft's new "Software + Services" schtick.

For reasons that were not 100% apparent to me at the time, my friend, Microsoft Partner Group CTO Steve Clayton seemed pretty keen to get his mitts on it. So what the hell, I let him take the original away with him.

Finally, all was revealed today. Congrats on the new gig, Steve.

[Completely Unrelated] Recent Twitter Post: "The gapingvoid biz model is based not around the cartoons, but around the people who read them. Big difference."

happy birthday blue monster

The Blue Monster just celebrated its one year anniversary. Microsoft's Steve Clayton reports:

It changed me if not Microsoft. It defines Hugh's Social Object concept. It defines much of how I think about Microsoft and has been the driving force in my desire to change perceptions that have built up over the years. Microsoft isn't perfect, but we're far from the evil that it's become all to easy to portray. Microsoft is made up of smart, passionate, funny and genuine people. I think Blue Monster has done a pretty good job of helping expose that, amongst other things. One year on I feel very good about that.

Rock on, Clayton.

[Update:] James Moody talks about how the Blue Monster affects his business:

I, myself, carry Blue Monster business cards from Street Cards and that has led to some interesting conversations with clients and prospective clients. Having the conversation has definitely led to more project closings (the good kind of closing) for me than not. The little guy has led more of my meetings into a "what do you think about this" type, than the "here’s what I can do, this is how much it will cost" type, which lets me connect more on a personal level with prospective clients. Once most people see how passionate I am about the software I’m recommending, it changes perceptions of the "big bad bully" on the block.

"social objects": blue monster wine update

For reasons unknown to me, suddenly in the last week the orders for Stormhoek Blue Monster Reserve have started flooding in, especially from Microsoftees in the USA. Rock on.

I'm getting on the case this week... if you've already contacted me about this, expect to be hearing from either me or my colleague, Tessa Soole in the next week or two. Thanks.

Some random thoughts:

1. I came up with the Blue Monster wine idea, as a exercise in creating a "Social Object". What the heck, Theory is all very well, but actual real-life commercial execution is a lot more fun and interesting. I'm just lucky to have the groovy cats at Stormhoek who let me try out these crazy ideas.

[My friend, Alison with a Blue Monster lithograph in her office.]

2. Earlier this year I created another Blue Monster social object, namely, the limited edition lithographs. I only made a thousand of them, and they went fast. As I didn't want to print more of them [that would've cheapened the first edition], I had to come up with something else, something that could scale beyond one thousand people. Since I'm in the wine business, and since I had already been making cartoon labels for Stormhoek wine, it wasn't too much of a stretch.

3. The Blue Monster wine is also part of the "Smarter Wine" conversation. The main thesis is that it's not the wine per se that is interesting, it's the conversations that happen around the wine that is interesting. And that is true for all social objects. People matter. Objects don't.

4. If the Blue Monster wine idea is interesting, it's because of a most unlikely mash-up between a small, obscure winery in South Africa, and the world's largest software company. But it's this very unlikelihood, this very unlikely swapping of Cultural DNA between two very different companies, that gives it its mojo.

5. Importing different Cultural DNA into an organization is a real balancing act. Too much of it makes it impossible for the company to focus. Too little and the company withers on the vine.

6. BL Ochman has a really good summation of the BM wine story here.

What’s important is that a lone blogger with a good idea was able to get a huge company to listen to him and to adopt one of his fairly radical ideas. It shows that social media is a viable force for change, for marketing, and for the new media than a lot of big companies may now finally begin to take seriously.

7. When thinking about applying social media to companies, "What social media tools should we use" should not be the first question. "How do we wish to talk to people differently" should be the first question. If you don't have an answer to this, quit your job and go find something else.

8. None of this stuff is rocket science. Most of it is glaringly obvious. And sadly for folks working in the social software industry, "The people who get it, don't need us. And the people who need us, don't get it." Which is why being a "blog consultant" or whatever is a lot less lucrative and rewarding than people often think.

9. I recently received the following e-mail:

Hugh,

As much as I like the Blue Monster, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? I mean, we both know that no matter how big the Blue Monster gets, Microsoft is still going to continue being "evil", and its software is still going to continue to suck. And no blogging cartoonist is ever going to change that.

Any thoughts?

Dave

Well, Dave, your low opinion of Microsoft notwithstanding, I'm not looking at this from the executive level. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a small-time cartoonist with a blog and an internet connection. And from where I'm standing, it seems to me that in a big company like Microsoft, even a small thing like the Blue Monster can create a lot of value for a lot of people. Not getting too carried away in the Expectation Department is what will keep things interesting.

10. No, I have no idea of where all this is going. All I care about these days is drawing cartoons, doing interesting things with interesting people, paying my bills, and keeping my sorry ass out of the hospital, the mental asylum, the morgue etc.

highly recommended reading:

James Cherkoff, who was in Paris with me earlier this week, has a really good write-up on Microsoft deciding to seriously enter the advertising game.

So what's the good news you may well be asking?

Well, Microsoft may be about to radically step up their aspirations in the world of advertising, but they have decided to play nice. They think that they their best chance of slicing off a large piece of the advertising pie - and preventing the whole market being run by Google - is to co-operate with the advertising industry not try and vaporise it. Ballmer and co have decided they need the people who understand the more subjective part of the marketing equation, otherwise known as branding, which even the most powerful algorithms can't get their processors around. Yet.

[Just added this post to the Blue Monster series.]

blue monster paris

A Microsoft friend just sent me this photo. Turns out the Blue Monster got a full five minutes of screen time in Paris the other day- at one of the few sessions that I missed. Heh.

[The chap presenting is the EMEA Vice President for MSN & Windows Live. EMEA = Europe, Middle East & Africa.]

marketing: the cultral fault line inside microsoft?

[Good party. Impressive backdrop.]

Just got back from a massive Microsoft party at the the Musee de l'Homme.

I have to get up early tomorrow. Big day at Imagination 07. Steve Ballmer is giving the keynote.

This conference is built around the folk who think of Microsoft in terms of "media", as opposed to software. Which, as a former advertising hack, I find interesting.

A line I have used many times before, I found myself using quite a lot today: "Google is just one algorithm away from Oblivion."

I handed out A LOT of Blue Monster business cards at the event. Though not everybody there had heard of the Blue Monster, it seemed the people who did were really enthused and passionate about it.

The more I get into this conversation, the more I'm starting to think that somehow I managed stumble upon this cultural fault line inside Microsoft, about what the company actually means to people, and where "the conversation" should be heading. One Microsoftee confided in me, "Our products are fine. Our marketing is the weak link, though."

I would agree. Which is why I'm fond of saying, the future of Microsoft lies squarely in how they talk to people. That's me thinking as a marketer, a "culturalist", not as a techie.

i.e. If "markets are conversations", then yeah, how you talk to people is the DNA of marketing.

N.B. Unlike some of the stuff going on in Redmond, none of this is rocket science. Which may explain why Redmond seems to have so much trouble grasping this.

stormhoek blue monster wine update

[Me and Microsoft's Steve Clayton enjoying the first ever opened bottle of Stormhoek Blue Monster Reserve]

If anybody wants to get their hands on a bottle or two of Stormhoek Blue Monster Reserve, this is how the lay of the land is looking:

1. You have to be a member of the "Friends of Blue Monster" Facebook page.

2. You have to live in the UK and the E.U. [Europe]. America will take a wee bit longer while we sort out the importer. We're hoping to have the first bottles ready to be shipped out by mid-October.

3. You have to be of legal drinking age, obviously.

4. They'll be available only by the half-case [6 bottles], not individually.

5. Sadly, Stormhoek is just a small wine company, and we can't afford to give them away. We will sell them at £45 per half-case [£7.50 a bottle]. Free shipping is included in the UK, but not Europe.

6. Though certain people inside Microsoft may like what we're doing, this is not a Microsoft gig. This is a Stormhoek gig.

7. Yes, red wine will also be available eventually. Working on it.

8. If you fancy a half-case, please drop us a line at bluemonsterwine@gmail.com. Thanks.

9. And also, a big, huge, massive thanks you to all the groovy cats inside Microsoft who lent their support to making this happen. Rock on.

simon phipps [and hamish newlands]

In my recent "Thoughts on Microsoft" post, I wrote the following:

3. So what happens if the Simon Phipps's of the world are right? So what happens if the future of software is indeed Open Source? How will Microsoft keep its shareholders happy? What if this recent article is right, and the unavoidable future is free software, and paid software is an equally unavoidable thing of the past? What then? Who has the answers? Do the answers actually exist yet?

[N.B. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Simon Phipps this summer at a dinner party, and I found him delightful company. Though his job is working with Open Source at Sun Microsystems, he also had a lot of nice things to say about Microsoft. A true gentleman.]

I'm happy to report that Simon left the following comment on gapingvoid:

Thank-you for the kind words, Hugh. I've a long record of association, observation and then competition with Microsoft, and it's my conviction that they need to rapidly transition to a position of peace with the concept and community of open source since it is reaching its "tipping point" because of the emerging dominance of the non-US market for them.

I've spent three years trying to make Sun behave in ways that make the community-of-communities trust Sun; it seems to me this has not yet become a priority for Microsoft.

Also, unlike Alec, I wouldn't use the word "buddies" of Sun and Microsoft yet. I'd rather say they have moved to a position of communicating via market-standard co-opetition rather than via the courts.

[UPDATE:] My old high-school friend, SAP consultant Hamish Newlands leaves a thoughtful comment below:

Well, the real issue is exactly the one that the blue monster addresses. "Change the world or go home."

Now, the two really big cash cows in MS are Windows and Office. The rest is big money, but not in this context, the margins and revenue mainly come from those two areas.

Only, problem is that Office has been feature complete from many people's perspective since version 2000, and those who require the high end functions in later versions are really not that huge of a market. (Assertion, not fact, but it feels right to me, and I am SAP ERP consultant, so I think I have some feel for what corporations are doing in this area.) So, as software effectively does not wear out, you will keep using the old versions, certainly I do at home.

For Windows the situation is more complex, because the PC comes with the operating system installed, and you do not generally change it. But interesting enough, the latest version, Vista, has been a late, bloated and unpopular failure, to the extent that PC vendors are seeking to allow downgrades to XP, which is unprecedented. Add to that the recent monopoly judgements in Europe, and some of the suggested remedies, and you have some serious thinking to do about how to manage the breakdown of the network effect that keeps it all together.

Think of three things.

Open document formats are now being approved by ISO, allowing interoperability of document formats at last.

IBM is (re) entering the Office Suite market, with a version of Open Office. That says that they think it is a legitimate choice, and the suits will sit up and ask, "why am I paying hundreds of dollars if free is apparently good enough?"

Finally, if the EU continues on its way, MS will have God's own job to extend the footprint to do more interesting things. Design meetings with an IP lawyer at the table, anyone?

But changing the world has already been done in these areas, arguably, what is happening now is just turd polishing. (Someone once said of six sigma and total quality, "I don't care how lovingly you polish it, a turd is still a turd.)

Truly disruptive innovation does change the world, but I am not sure where MS is trying that these days. That's not to say that the company is not clever, motivated, hard-working or whatever, but the goals have not changed significantly for some time.

[UPDATE:] Hamish had a few afterthoughts himself, and published them on his blog: "SAP has Decided to Stop Polishing the Turd":

And that was the comment that got me thinking: I have been looking at Business byDesign in SAP, and have expressed some reservations about the fact that it is going to have to:

* Requires a totally (or at least substantially) different sales model for the SME market
* Requires different implementation and support approaches
* Potentially cannabalises and changes the business model of SAP.

At first I thought "neh, bad". Then I read Hugh's post, and thought, "Aha. Change the World or Go Home." I grok the intent now, SAP is stable, big, and we could profitably polish the turd for ever. Or we could disrupt the whole market, change it, and win that game instead, even if it is different from the one we have now. Oracle has already stated it is not going to try it, effectively, so we have new things to do, and new horizons to conquer, even if we do have to learn new tricks.

Took me a while, but I am on board now. Business ByDesign. Let's go.

Yeah, I'm sure there's a few people inside Microsoft who can really relate to Hamish's last point vis-a-vis their own stuff etc.

[UPDATE:] Software analayst, James Governor makes a good point in the comments, as well:

Never mind polishing a turd. Success comes when you allow your product babies to become children, and then young adults that eat their parents. R/3 ate R/2. SAP won. The rest is history.

Software companies are shackled by success.

[Cartoon inspired by Adriana, of course.]

thoughts on microsoft

[A view from the London Microsoft offices, taken earlier today. Westminster Cathedral in the background, McDonald's in the foreground. N.B. I first ate at this McDonald's when I was twelve years old, with my dad and my sister, the first time I ever visited London. We stayed in a hotel just up the street, so every time I'm in this neighborhood the memories come flooding back to me, for this is the first neighborhood in the city I became familiar with. Somehow visiting Microsoft today seemed to make everything come around full circle, from that Big Mac & Fries all those years ago.]

I was visiting some folk at Microsoft UK today, talking about all things to do with Blue Monsters and social objects. I even brought along a bottle of Blue Monster wine. Though I can't talk about what the meeting was about, here are some general thoughts I came away with, in no particular order:

1. "Agents of Calcification". This is a rather snarky term I recently coined to describe the folks in a big company- any big company, not necessarily Microsoft- whose role isn't to invent, make, or sell stuff, but to maintain and enhance the apparatus of bureaucracy, even at the expense of the business itself. Though these agents can serve a legitimate organizational purpose, when any company has too many of these people, you sadly end up with this cartoon [i.e. a "Big Lump o' Death"]. The bigger the company gets, the more energy anybody trying to get anything interesting done will have to spend, trying to navigate around these folk. These folk are why I never take on salaried positions at big companies- I've never been very good at handling them. Despite what Frederick Winslow Taylor may have said, people are not machines. Form NEVER follows function.

2. The Blue Monster came from a simple observation I made early on in my career as a Microsoft watcher: That most people I've met who work there could be making more money elsewhere, and taking a lot less grief from the general public and the media. So what motivates them? The answer to this, in spite of all the baggage that comes with it, is what makes the company so interesting for me.

3. So what happens if the Simon Phipps's of the world are right? So what happens if the future of software is indeed Open Source? How will Microsoft keep its shareholders happy? What if this recent article is right, and the unavoidable future is free software, and paid software is an equally unavoidable thing of the past? What then? Who has the answers? Do the answers actually exist yet? [N.B. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Simon Phipps this summer at a dinner party, and I found him delightful company. Though his job is working with Open Source at Sun Microsystems, he also had a lot of nice things to say about Microsoft. A true gentleman.]

4. Are people [both inside and outside the company] ready to start seeing Microsoft not primarily as a software company, but as a media company? And if Microsoft's business model turns away from paid software, towards advertising and free software, who will be the winners? Who will be the losers?

5. Calling Microsoft "Evil" is too easy. An adjective used by the incurious and intellectually lazy.

6. I find it re-assuring that most Microsofties I meet don't seem too phased by the fact that I use a MacBook, not a PC. As Bill Gates said recently, "We like Apple, they buy a lot of software from us."

7. A few weeks ago, I was having lunch with somebody very high up the global Digital Advertising foodchain. He was telling me about how once he was pitching for a ten million dollar account with a large international client. The client basically said, "I love the idea. Let's do it. But... can you scale it to a hundred million dollar spend?" My friend sadly had to confess that his idea did not scale that large. My takeaway: Advertising clients are lining up to give talented folk their money. The only problem is, this brave new world is still in its infancy, much the same way TV advertising was in its infancy fifty years ago. Unlike traditional advertising media, demand for services exceeds supply. There lies the opportunity, but even the smartest minds in the business are still having a hard time figuring it out.

8. Though Google may be a fierce competitor of my friends in Redmond, in many ways what they're doing actually makes Microsoft's job a whole lot easier. Google broke a lot of ice when it came to creating a viable mass market for advertisers [understatement]. Thanks to Google, people ARE willing to spend money on online advertising in a way they simply weren't before AdSense came along. If Microsoft [or any other company] can add something to the party, with ever more increasingly sophisticated offerings, they stand to gain on a massive scale. The clients are there, ready and willing to spend the big money. But now the onus is on Microsoft et al to provide a good enough reason.

9. As wonderful and interesting as "Web 2.0" has been to both me and a lot of my friends, the fact is, again, it's still early days. Again, even the smartest people I know in this space have little idea about what's going to happen next. Again, like TV advertising in the 1950s, we're basically making it up as we go along. But that's what makes it so exciting.

10. I still happily stand by what I said about Microsoft, late last year:

For too long, Microsoft has allowed other people- the media, the competition and their detractors, especially- to tell their story on their behalf, instead of doing a better job of it themselves.

We firmly believe that Microsoft must start articulating their story better- what they do, why they do it, and why it matters- if they're to remain happy and prosperous long-term.

Let me put it another way: The future of Microsoft, and how Microsoft talks to people in the future, are one and the same. Yes, Virginia, the future of Microsoft is "Conversation."

e.r.p. being built around social media, not the other way around?

My friend, Shel Israel is doing some consulting work for the large German ERP software firm, SAP. To aid the cause I answered ten questions about social media that he e-mailed to me. Here they are below:

1. You've been around the social media scene for a long time. How has it emerged from your perspective?

It has emerged very unevenly, yet constantly. Six years of blogging later, and I still am utterly unable to predict what or who is going to be "the next big thing". Will Twitter win? Or Jaiku? Something else? Nobody knows. A year ago MySpace looked unstoppable. Now there's Facebook. Three years ago LinkedIn was all the rage. What will happen to Google in 10 years? Your guess is as good as mine. Sometimes it's just easier to wait for the future to arrive on your doorstep than to try to foresee events.

2. Where do you think social media will be going over the next 5-10 years?

I think it will continue to gravitate to where it has always gravitated towards i.e. Faster, Cheaper and Easier.

The most interesting thing to me recently has watching the peaking of blogs. For a couple of years there they were the biggest story in media. Now their cultural influence seems a lot smaller. People finally figured out that yes, doing a blog well is actually very time consuming. Not everybody wants to be Robert Scoble- Hell, I'm not sure if Scoble wants to be Scoble all the time, either [Joke!]. Which created a lot of opportunities for less time-consuming web products.

This is us seeing Social Media evolving way from the time-guzzling "Celebrity Model", where people emulate "broadcasters" on a small scale, towards something that is far more useful to most people i.e. something that allows people to make friends and talk to their friends more easily.

This is why I find Facebook so interesting. The fact that it was invented by college students doesn't surprise me.

Think about it. Every college kid has a tight-knit group of friends [Think, for example, Animal House or St. Elmo's Fire}. Facebook was designed from the very beginning to allow groups of pre-existing friends like these to communicate with each other better. Quite different from the "broadcast model" of blogs. It's more collegiate.

3. How is social media emerging in the UK and EU v the US?

The UK blogging scene always struck me as relatively smaller and geekier than the US scene. Brits have always struck me as more cautious at embracing the internet compared to the Americans, and I imagine this will continue. That being said, the London Facebook network is the second largest in the world, bigger than New York's. I'm guessing this means they don't mind using social media for the FRIENDS THEY ALREADY HAVE, and are less willing to use Social Media to make new "online friends". Then again, the French really took to blogging, I suppose because it's an ideal medium for people with strong opinions- and the French do like a good, strong conversations. The Germans I understand never took to blogging on the same level as the French or the Brits, however I'm told they're really into Wikipedia- a more collaborative medium that respects and defers to authority.

I met a lot of really great bloggers in Denmark, the couple of times I've been there. Really smart and passionate. I suppose when you live in a very small country with few resources, the incentive to adopt an extremely cheap and easy global medium is huge. Similar to why it helps to learn English.

4. Let's narrow the conversation down to business. Are European businesses
embracing social media? What about just in the UK?

E-mail is a part of office life. Nobody questions its function [even when one has 800 unread e-mails waiting in one's inbox]. We're not quite at that stage yet with Social Media. The vibe I get from corporates who ask me questions at conferences is not one of certainly and enthusiasm, but more of a head-scratching, "Well, everybody else seems to be doing it, this is kinda the future, so I suppose I should be paying more attention, but..." I hear the word "But" a lot. It's still early days. In five years time I expect to be hearing "But" a lot less.

5. What tools are they embracing? Do various cultures impact the tools that
are gaining in popularity?

They are embracing all sorts of tools. There a lot of them out there, and nobody, repeat nobody can predict how much traction they'll eventually get inside a company culture. So what the savvy social software engineer will do is try lots of things and see which snowball rolls all the way down the hill, rather than put all of the eggs into a single, oversized basket.

6. Do you see a difference in the way global enterprises are embracing
social media v. small to medium sized businesses?

Big businesses will always have trouble with anything that subverts hierarchies, for hierarchy is the glue that holds large organizations together. Small businesses have an easier time with blogs and whatnot, for there are fewer layers to keep happy. Secondly, small companies are for the most part private companies. Large companies generally have public shareholders. Different rules apply.

7. What similarities/differences do you see between C-level acceptance of
social media and mid-management?

Mid-Management is in the unfortunate situation of wanting to "get it", knowing it's the future, whilst at the same time, they're paid to maintain the status quo. One thing management often underestimates is JUST HOW DISRUPTIVE social software is. I see lots of pain in that future. Hopefully it'll end up being worth it in the long run.

The main impact Social Media has brought to me was seeing my business model, over a period of about five years, evolving from a "Hierarchy" privilege model to what Jon Husband calls a "Wirearchy" model.

I started my career in the advertising business, working as a "creative". Back in the 1990s, there was very much a pyramid-shaped hierarchy in that industry, with "rock stars" on the top, and the "grunts" on the bottom. Every creative's business model seemed to be about getting the rock stars to notice you. In order to get paid noticeably more money you had to do all the normal stuff- win awards, land a job in a "sexy" agency, get your ad on to The Superbowl etc. Everyone knew who the rock stars were. Everyone knew what they were up to. And all you could do is hopefully one day get the opportunity to make your mark, the same way the rock stars had- INSIDE the existing pyramid.

Now, as a blogger, I feel completely oblivious to all that. Now I have a unique social network, kept coherent with Social Software, where the business model is not about rising up some imaginary status ladder, but "mashing up" people I know.

For example, I have people in my network who work in the wine business. I have people in my network who work for Microsoft. So maybe one day I'll end up doing something wine-related with Microsoft. Or not.

Suddenly I find myself without "50 people who want to take my job", simply because what I do is unique to myself, unique to my own social network. It's as unique as any human fingerprint. And the positive effect is has had on my own personal sense of sovereignty is staggering.

So let's say over the next, I dunno, ten, twenty, fifty years, this social network paradigm gets more prevalent. Will we still need large companies? Will we still be able to compete with all that unwieldy, energy-guzzling, calcifying corporate structure? Or will everything become "a loose confederation of skunk works"?

It's too early to tell, of course. Instead, focus on this: The main story about social software is not about how it allows you to carry out existing company functions, just more quickly and easily. It's bigger than that. In the future, companies will grow around social software, not the other way around. And your client, SAP, had better be ready for this. Because it's already starting to happen.

8. What are the biggest barriers to social media acceptance in EU business?

The barriers are the same as they've always been. Dinosaurs have a lot of money and power. And dinosaurs don't like dying.

9. How is social media changing culture?

Social media can only change the culture to the extent that it can change the nature of work. Which, as it's already starting to happen on a huge scale, is actually quite a lot.

10. Additional Comments?

One more thought, which pertains directly to your client. I firmly believe that the line that separates social media and ERP is going to start getting VERY blurry, and really soon. I can see a not-to-distant future where even the larger ERP solutions are built around social software, not the other way around. And I can see that day arriving in under five years. We live in interesting times.

[UPDATE:] Sigurd pipes in on Point Number 10:

As software "models real life as we see it" the ERP train picked up the well structured processes and left the loose ends to fight for themselves. But yesterday Hugh argued "that the line that separates social media and ERP is going to start getting VERY blurry, and really soon... I can see a not-to-distant future where even the larger ERP solutions are built around social software, not the other way around". And I agree simply for the reason that they should be one, there are no reasons why the world puts a line in the sand between structured and loose ends processes.

Actually it boils down to the definition of what "social software" is.

Social software "enables people to rendezvous, connect or collaborate".

But a short circuit happens in our brains when we "see" what social software is using those three terms: It invokes the image of an open marketplace or gathering where the efficiency requires freedom and little structure and thus quite the opposite of what ERP entails.

[UPDATE:] SAP's Thomas Otter pipes in about the false distinction between "business software" and "consumer software":

Creating barriers to entry through complexity is not a viable strategy. Creating competitive advantage through simplicity and fun is. Widgets, mashups, tagging, community and so on are not just cute. They are fundamental to the future of enterprise applications. It isn’t just the technology, it is the mindset.

scoble meets the blue monster

Heh. Robert Scoble has a Blue Monster sticker on his laptop. This pic was taken while he was waiting in line to get his new iPhone, so I'm told.

The sticker was given to him by Steve Clayton. Shel Israel got one, too. Steve tells me they were quite a hot commodity when he got them made, and his supply ran out very soon.

Robert's never mentioned The Blue Monster on his blog, as far as I'm aware. Not in any great detail, at least. Do I find that surprising? Not really. I can totally see how he'd much rather write more about his new job at PodTech, rather than about his old job at Microsoft. But I was delighted to see him joining the Facebook "Friends of Blue Monster" group.

I also notice the two Jaiku stickers. Very cool. "Social Object, Baby!"

the 1949 olivetti typewriter

[The 1949 Olivetti MP1 typewriter]

Of all the hundreds of lectures I attended in college many years ago, one stands out more than any other, one I remember more than any other.

It was a lecture on Industrial Design. More specifically, it was a lecture on the 1949 Olivetti MP1 typewriter.

Basically, what makes the Olivetti typewriter so iconic in the history of design are those smooth, sexy, curvy lines. What the lecturer referred to as "The Humanizing of the Machine".

What makes it interesting is that these sexy, curvy lines are, unlike say, Art Deco, completely functional, not decorative. Forms follows function, but in a feminine, non-masculine way.

Before Olivetti, nobody thought of industrial design in "feminine" terms. Now they do. Just look at Apple and the work of Jonathan Ive.

What got me thinking about this? Working with Microsoft got me thinking about this. I believe that if Microsoft wants to re-invent itself, if it wants to keep evolving, growing and prospering long-term, I keep thinking to myself, what Olivetti did to the typewriter, Microsoft has to do to itself.

Exactly. "The Humanizing of the Machine". Welcome to The Blue Monster.

bill and steve

I suppose Everybody and Their Uncle will have seen the recent interview of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs by now, their first joint interview in 10 years.

It's an hour or so long. For the benefit of Generation-YouTube, Wired's "Cult of Mac" blog has it broken into seven easy-to-digest segments here.

The good news is, this is no simple PR photo op. This is two very smart, successful guys talking in great depth about what interests them most. Fascinating stuff.

Having been watching Microsoft close-up for the last month or two, the most interesting bit for me was, funnily enough, only about five seconds long.

It was about 6 minutes and 10 seconds into Segment Number Five, when Bill makes a rather small, vague remark, something or other to do with Microsoft soon re-entering the internet game with renewed vigor, upping their ante.

I thought that was VERY interesting. Bill understating something so important to the future of the software industry [i.e. the Internet] spoke volumes to me. Say what you want, the implications are potentially huge.

[UPDATE: Within a day of me writing the preceding three paragraphs, Techcrunch broke this story. You know you want me, Babe.]

[Bonus Link:] Usable Interfaces has a nice summary of the show.

The other big Microsoft moment for me this week was the announcement of this, especially in light of the many "Microsoft is increasingly irrelevant" comments directed my way [and ipso facto, towards the Microsoft Employees who read this blog] in the last month or two. Never a dull moment in the tech business etc.

I'm currently "between innings" with the whole Microsoft/Tech/Blue Monster thing. Taking a breather while events gather momentum all around me. Some things I can't talk about, some VERY interesting things I hope to make public very soon. Watch this space.

tara and the blue monster...

Heh. My buddy, Tara Hunt has her reservations about the Blue Monster.

Whether or not they are actually ‘changing the world or going home’ is up for deep debate and discussion, but when they showed up at the Web 2.0 Expo sporting this cartoon all over t-shirts and signage, I was taken aback. The PR people were standing at the door to the MS session, happily handing out their (men’s XL & XXL) tshirts to everyone coming into the session. A big smile, saying, “See? We’re hip. We’re listening,” across their face.

Fair enough. The interesting thing to me is, Tara seems to perceive the Blue Monster as a message originating from inside Microsoft, directed to the outside world. Wrong. It's a message that originated OUTSIDE Microsoft, directed internally. The fact that Microsoft is sending it back externally shows there's a two-way conversation starting. Which was the entire point of the exercise, after all.

I am reminded of a big A-HA! moment I had a few years ago when I first realized that the REAL story about Robert Scoble's blog [when he was still working at Microsoft] was not about how it was changing external perceptions about Microsoft ["Oh, what a lovely blog. I think I'll stop hating Microsoft from now on."], but how it was stirring things up inside the company.

Yes, I tend to view the Blue Monster in much the same way.

I see the Blue Monster less of a message, and more of a social object that starts a conversation. That's what keeps it interesting. As soon as the Microsoft brand police try to take it over and turn it into a straight external marketing message, it's over. Though yeah, Tara's post was a good warning of that scenario, I think by focusing just on the externals, and not really giving ANY thought to the internal dimension, she kind of missed the most important point.

And to take the Scoble analogy one step further. Well, as revolutionary as Scoble's blog seemed at the time he was at Microsoft, as wonderful as it was, he ultimately didn't change Microsoft from top to bottom, either. But that is not to say his blog was neither useful or valuable. It certainly was both to me.

[UPDATE:] Nice observation from JP Rangaswami:

If I’ve interpreted [Tara] correctly, she also alludes to another, equally important point: People want Microsoft to change. That is the essence of what made the Blue Monster such a hit, it was a way of people outside Microsoft telling people in Microsoft of the intense need for change, a point that Hugh makes eloquently.

15 new blogcard designs

There are fifteen new blogcard designs available, many taken from The Blue Monster Series.

all writing should be free

What working with Microsoft has taught me so far:

1. Saying "All software should be free" sounds as silly as saying "All writing should be free".

2. Saying "All software should be paid for" sounds as silly as saying "All writing should be paid for".

It depends who's doing the making. It depends who's doing the using. Everything is contextual. About half the work I do is free. The other half is paid for. Both feed the other. Contextually.

Conclusion: The Free vs. Proprietary software debate I've been following recently is a red herring. At least, it is when you're thinking about it in terms of either/or absolutes.

So I'm delighted to have found somebody a million times more informed than me, Microsoft's Bill Hilf talking about this stuff as well.

[UPDATE:] Ha! My old high school buddy, Hamish Newlands, who now works for SAP, pipes in about the Blue Monster:

Continuing the jolly religious theme, we have Hugh, my long time friend at GapingVoid getting into the big Microsoft Beast. Blue Monster indeed, and I am happy for Hugh that he may have another major gig coming up. So I have some words of advice, being used to this kind of organisation, in my life with SAP.

"Run Away, Run Away before they eat you! Behind you! Run faster!"

[UPDATE:] Seth Godin pipes in as well:

Some critics think [Hugh is] selling out. I don't. I think he's having a huge impact on an organization--from the outside--at the same time that he demonstrates how just about any large organization can rethink its role in the world. And he's doing it in front of all of us, without a net.

only talented people

[One of the cartoons I did for Seth Godin's new book, "The Dip".]

Zakamundo left the following comment here:

Hugh, you say "there are some seriously smart, good people working [at Microsoft] who yes, can still change the world for the better".

You may well be right. But the question that the recent court action poses, and the question that the comments on this thread suggests, and the question that even you appear defensive on, is this:

Can these people change Microsoft for the better?

Now it might be that Microsoft is great, and people don't realise it - then 'all' MS needs is a good and consistent marketing exercise. But it is a big corporation, and its intended audience (um, almost everyone?) will have perceptions with significant inertia. And thats assuming MSFT can stay on-message all the time - can they aspire to match the impact and values of Apple's marketing for instance?

Or it might be that Microsoft as a corporation is possessed by a corporate culture that generates external behavior that is jealous of others, patronising to its clients and bullying to those smaller. In which case the external audience's perceptions are rooted in reality, and the Blue Monster crowd have a problem on their hands.

I spent 15 years working in investment banking (derivatives trading) - full of hugely intelligent, focussed people. Some were great, and really did want to effect positive change from within. What I found fascinating, and somewhat depressing, was the longevity and all-pervasiveness of the corporate culture - different at each of the 3 institutions I worked for, but persistent at each one.

One example I can give : I too tried to change organisations from within, and was a major sponsor of the 'new' communication tools of wikis, chat and blogs at the most recent bank that employed me. Huge amounts of my management time and effort went into this, and yet each time I took my foot off the gas, the use of these tools would evaporate. There was a rather obvious lack of overt senior management support for the use and distribution of these tools, and that company is still stuck in the email age.

The way corporate life works is that change needs to come from the top down, as well as the bottom up. Feverish activity in the middle is at risk of being wasted. I think it is a pleasant diversion to dream of a better, fairer worlds, with corporate charters drawn up as a response to Cluetrain manifestoes, but my experience and observation is that it's just not how it works. Am more than happy to be proved or persuaded otherwise.

Sorry for the rant,

Z

Here's my reply:

No worries about the rant. That's what the blogosphere is for ;-)

I disagree with you, though, at least partially. I think small changes can lead to big changes. Though exactly how is not always immediately obvious from the onset [And we have thousands of years of mythology- everything from Homer, to Jesus, to King Arthur, to Star Wars- telling us the exact same thing].

What I like about the Blue Monster [and what I've liked from the very beginning] is that nobody owns the conversation- Not me, not MSFT, not the anti-MSFT crowd, not the media. It has a life of its own- which is what keeps it interesting...

[This entry has been added to the Blue Monster series.]

random thought

[Part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

This cartoon came to me at about 4am this morning... I'm sure Kathy Sierra has said the same thing before, better than me etc...

[UPDATE:] From Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun:

All of which is to say - no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities - or the Fortune 500 - that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet - creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.

Free Ones. Free Zeros. It's all good etc.

[Note To Self:] My detractors think I'm pimping Microsoft. They are wrong. I'm pimping The Hughtrain. Heh.

question for the blue monster crowd: "who owns the soul of microsoft?"

[Click on image to enlarge/download print etc. Licensing terms here.]

I suppose the wonderful time I've had with some folk at Microsoft recently, versus the recent news that they're going to sic the lawyers on the Open Source crowd for patent infringement is kinda giving me conflicting emotions.

On one side of the Redmond coin, we've got the Blue Monster crowd. On the other, we have the lawyer crowd, at least as far as the bloggers are concerned, pulling a seriously fat rabbit out of the hat.

I don't know enough about the case to legally opine one way or the other. Whatever. People will use the news to re-affirm what they already believe. I'm more interested in the Blue Monster crowd, and what happens to them. I'm more interested in the long-term.

And to see the long-term, first you have to ask the following question: Who owns the soul of Microsoft? The people with the Blue Monster cartoon on their screensavers? Bill, Steve, Ray and the other guys living in the big houses? The lawyers? The shareholders? I know which answer I prefer, but ultimately, they have to answer it for themselves. And do it well.

For me personally, if the Blue Monster has one purpose, if I have one reason for working with Microsoft, it's to remind people that yes, Microsoft has a soul, even if they've never been particularly good at letting people see it. And yes, for all the baggage they have acquired over the years, there are some seriously smart, good people working there who yes, can still change the world for the better.

And the sooner they get better at telling people this, the happier I will be.

open source is a religion

[Cartoon part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

[Bonus link- William Hurley:] "Seven Reasons Why Microsoft Loves Open Source."

[UPDATE- From JP Rangaswami:]

I agree vehemently with one thing William says. In reason 6, he makes the point

Microsoft doesn’t fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

This is true for all companies, and for all Because Effect infrastructure. By itself not to be feared (the With); yet feared for what your competitors can do with with (the Because Of).

The moral of the story is: As infrastructure moves from the "With" state to the "Because Of" state, make sure you move with it. Because if you don’t and your competitors do, you’re on the road to Toast.

[UPDATE- Jeff Atwood:]

As a software developer, you're doing yourself a disservice by pledging allegiance to anything other than yourself and your craft-- whether it's Microsoft or the principle of free software. Stop with the us vs. them mentality. Let go of the partisanship. We're all in this thing together.

in new york

I'm in Manhattan, stopping over in New York on my way back home from Seattle. Tonight I'm having dinner with my old friend, Mark Mann.

On Friday I spent the entire day at Microsoft, which was really amazing. All these insanely smart people everywhere. Wow.

The day had many highlights, but I think my favorite would have to be meeting Steve Ball. We had a really great conversation mostly about Robert Fripp, Love and Vista [Steve used to play in Robert's band]. Steve writes about it here. He played some really incredible guitar, and I drew on one of his business cards [see pic above]. It was a really pleasure and honor hanging out with him.

Another guy I really liked was Jason Matusow. He had some seriously interesting things to say about Open Source. Apparently he knows my friend, James Governor as well, who he spoke very highly of. Small world.

Thanks especially to Kris Fuehr, who made the whole day possible. It was great hanging out with you, finally. Also thank you for leaving the following comment in a recent gapingvoid entry:

Thomas, you may be right that GapingVoid is assimilating Microsoft.

I had the great honor of spending the entire day with Hugh yesterday. One of my colleagues at MS said after the meeting as he shook Hugh's hand: "Thanks Hugh, you really rocked my brain around". I think that sums it up. Hugh's probably on a plane to NYC now. What's fascinating is that Hugh just 'is'. He doesn't wear his agenda on his sleeve and, as you point out here, his curiosity and additive approach affords him great respect. He opened my eyes to a bunch of things. The ecosystem, the subtleties, the no zero-sum game, heck even music references.

Speaking of music--We met with Steve Ball which I'm sure Hugh will write about it. (I took video on our camera phones). A conversation with Steve is a sensory cornucpia. Steve is responsible for the way that Vista greets you each day. Poor Steve, a mountain of talent, he's trying to inch some of it into the millions of desktops and hampered by the need for Vista to be everything to everyone. (no electric guitars...wouldn't want to offend grandma!) Fascinating conversation between Hugh and Steve. They connected at so many levels conceptually, musically, socially, and there was this "jiffy pop" effect where they suddently were into a zone of thousand ping-pong phrases finishing each other's sentences, etc..

I have to say that the art Hugh practices requires a certain 'Master Po' quality to it. He has to help people realize things on their own by asking questions. You then have the chance to internalize them - own them as your own. Here, I am Grasshopper and while many times I understand what Hugh says, sometimes it takes me a few hours or days to really internalize it, but it eventually happens and Hugh is pretty patient. (I think)

Hugh's curiosity with Microsoft comes not from anything related to 'sell-out' (by any means) It's his interest in the re-invention. The simple models that Hugh was white-boarding with us yesterday were so deep and meaningful, but so simply expressed. I think this symbiotic relationship is far tipped in Microsoft's benefit vs. Hugh's so you should try some different words than 'sell-out'. Maybe 'point-out'?

Quick sidebar that made me chuckle (and it gives me a chance to try on some of what I've learned). Hugh and I used the hand-manipulatable Virtual Earth glass table). The demo lets you use your hands to zoom/pan/move the 3D map and Hugh asked if this was Google Earth.

Now, shutting off my cheerleading tendencies where I normally would say: "yes! It's Microsoft's Virtual Earth which is so cool in the following ways....."
Rather, I'm going to say: Microsoft does have a earth-to-street-level 2-D & 3-D mapping solution. The team who worked on it were asked to build features that would be more compelling and useful than anything currently available. You can try it an see if they succeeded in doing that local.live.com. Google and Microsoft each have areas of strengths in different cities. Many people are comparing different cities and discussing which they prefer and where. e.g. while Google has a 3d rendition of a stadium in San Francisco, Microsoft has a detailed view of the building in the Vegas strip. Which you pick may depend on which areas you focus on. You can see a side-by-side comparison at http://www.jonasson.org/maps/.

A lot of people are infected with the HughTrain bug. Having him explain it in person has been even more enlightening. I think next time, we'll just reserve a room for 500+ and broaden the discussion. Next trip Hugh?

HINT: Hugh's masterplan? Every time the blue monster is exposed to techies through Microsoft or other channels, Stormhoek's name is embedded directly to its target market. Mwah, ha ha! Happy to oblige, Hugh. It's brilliant.

-Kris

And the geek dinner that followed in Pike's Market afterwards was terrific, as well. Thanks to Eric for pulling that together.

I've had a really great trip this time round, I have to say. This whole Blue Monster thing seems to be taking on a life of its own. Steve and I have lots to talk about, when I get back to London.

[UPDATE:] The latest Blue Monster lithograph finally sold for £150 [approx $300 US] on e-Bay. Wow.

the echo chamber [revisited]

Is it just me, or would "The Echo Chamber" make a good cartoon for the Microsoft Blue Monster Series?

You know, "MS has got to get outside of the Echo Chamber, outside of Redmond increasingly more often if it wishes to stay relevant long-term" etc etc etc.

I've changed the line from the original red to black. I never liked the red, not sure why...

Meanwhile, the other night at the Girl Geek Dinner, Sarah Blow told me that before I arrived at the event, there was some conversation going on at one of the tables about gapingvoid "being assimilated by Microsoft".

I can see their point, but this is kind of short-term thinking to me. In the past, I've been assimilated by many things in the last few years- the cartoons, the suit business, the wine business, the advertising business, the marketing business, whatever takes my fancy at the time. Somehow the blog keeps ticking along, regardless.

My attitude is, as long as I keep drawing new cartoons, things will stay interesting. If I stop, things will peter out. The cartoons are the canary in the coal mine etc.

[Bonus Link:] It was great meeting David Terrar in the flesh, finally. Here's his take on the Girl Geek Dinner.

skunk works

This is another old cartoon [2004] that I think would fit nicely into the Microsoft Blue Monster Series.

I was talking to somebody the other day from Microsoft, saying that the point of the cartoon series should not just be to articulate "The Selling Proposition" of Microsoft [The phrase, "Dancing around like a bunch of high school cheerleaders" came up more than once.].

I believe there are far more compelling conversations out there. What is software for? What is Microsoft for? Where does Microsoft fit within the entire ecosystem? How does Microsoft stay relevant long-term? Why does any of this matter in the first place? You tell me.

[First Rule of Marketing:] If you want to be interesting, don't talk about yourself. Amen.

changing the system [revisited]

[Part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

I originally posted this cartoon last year, but something told me it just HAD to be part of the Blue Monster Series...

every time i open my wallet

[Part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

how to tell

[Part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

the problem with being in tech marketing

[Click on image to enlarge etc. Part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

[Bonus Link:] "I'd rather be Microsoft than Yahoo."

change my stats

[Cartoon part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series.]

I drew this one at a pub in Chiswick last week. Microsoft's Chris Parkes explains.

how well does open source currently meet the needs of shareholders and ceo's?

["Science Project": part of the Microsoft Blue Monster Series. Backstory from Steve and Kris etc.]

This cartoon was an attempt by me to sum up the answer to a very simple question: If Open Source software is free, then why bother spending money on Microsoft Partner stuff?

I already know what Microsoft's detractors will say: "There's no reason whatsoever. $40 billion per year is totally wasted."

This, however is not a very satisfying answer, simply because it doesn't quite ring true. Otherwise there'd be a lot more famous Open Source billionaires out there, being written up in Forbes Magazine or wherever. And Bill Gates would've been ousted years ago.

I know very little about software, so my hunch is that the reason Microsoft is able to make money, is simply that running a large business with 2000 people on the payroll requires very different ways of going about it, than just hacking together something in your garage. Open Source may be free [at least at first], but how well does it scale? How well does Open Source currently meet the needs of shareholders and CEOs?

You tell me. Anybody who has more insight than me [pro or anti Microsoft, I don't care], please feel free to leave a comment, Thanks.

[Comment- Darcy Moen:]"Hugh, the question you need to answer is: Does software drive business development, or does need drive software development?"

Darcy, I think that is a question we all have yet to answer fully. I don't think anybody has cracked it 100% yet.

The way you framed your comment [read it in its entirety below] implies that the gap that separates what you aspire to do, and what you are actually doing with software is minimal. Even knowing what little I know about how IT works in the REAL world, I am not entirely convinced.

The "Microsoft vs Open Source" question doesn't interest me so much. The question, "What/How does Microsoft have to do/change if it wishes to survive the next thirty years" interests me greatly. And not just Microsoft, either...

[UPDATE:] "Why are the open source business people not ultra-rich yet?" Serious food for thought.

[UPDATED:] JP Rangaswami. "10 Reasons For Enterprise To Use Open Source."

[UPDATE:] Seth Godin. "It's not often that I disagree with Hugh, but this time, I do..."

[UPDATE:] Rick Segal. "Shareholders, CEOs, and (for the most part) Investors are generally clueless when it comes to the beginnings of your great idea. You take the tools (whatever they are), your vision, and your passion into the game. You create a solution and see if the dogs eat it. You don't worry about pleasing anyone, just fix the problem. If it was worth fixing, if the product/service you offer has value/meaning to people, you are there. Your shareholders and your investors will be happy after your customers are."

[Comment- James:] If Microsoft views me as a customer, then why do they go out of their way to get me the tools needed to drive sales on their behalf? Why am I always getting reminders about the free services they provide? I have yet to be approached by Microsoft to purchase software/products. Not once. Other companies flood me with product offerings that they want me to buy. Microsoft doesn't. They give me what I need to drive sales, which ultimately some ends in MS's coffers, but also puts some in mine as well. I've come out ahead in my Partnership with Microsoft to this point, I wouldn't say I'm a customer based on that. Customers end up on the negative side of the money equation, not ahead.

[AFTERTHOUGHT:] I am sad to report that Microsoft's Steve Clayton has gone on vacation this week, so we won't be having his wonderful contributions in the comments section for a while. But I'm hoping other MS folk and Partners will join in the discussion in his absence etc.]

[Bonus Link:] "10 things they didn't tell you about blogging." Fabulous.