Microsoft's search must begin in Redmond
Microsoft's challenge to grow its share of the search business isn't just a global issue. It's also a challenge within its own walls.
Despite investing five years and hundreds of millions of dollars on its search product, Microsoft has struggled to get people to use its service, even those whom it employs. Microsoft Senior Vice President Yusuf Mehdi said the company's share of the search market--even internally--has been disappointing.
Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi
(Credit: Microsoft)"That's true," Mehdi said in an interview last week.
At a company meeting about a year ago, one Microsoft worker recalls hearing that four-fifths of the company's search traffic was going to Google. Although he uses Live Search personally, the worker, who asked not to be named, said plenty of his co-workers still use Google.
"We are still fighting that battle," the worker said. Among its full-time U.S. workers, Microsoft says that, for February, Live Search and Google had roughly equal share, at around 48 percent apiece, with little search traffic going to Yahoo or any of the other search players.
Mehdi said that Microsoft has won some internal support for specific products, such as its Live Search Cashback feature, which gives people a rebate on certain products purchased through its search engine. But, he said, broader adoption, even internally, is still really something that is in the company's future as opposed to its present.
"I think some of that is predicated on us talking broadly about some great experiences and promoting it heavily, which is something I think we are going to do soon," Mehdi said.
And, of course, Microsoft's lackluster search share isn't limited to Redmond. The latest monthly statistics, released Friday, show Microsoft with just 10.3 percent of the U.S. market, according to Nielsen Online, compared with 64.2 percent for Google and 15.8 percent for Yahoo. More importantly, the company had year-over-year growth of less than 1 percent compared to 16 percent growth for the market as a whole.
Microsoft is hoping that the next version of its product, code-named Kumo, will prompt more people both within and outside the company to give Microsoft another chance. The company has been testing it internally since last month, Microsoft hasn't said much about Kumo, but several screenshots obtained by CNET News provide a glimpse.
The revamped search page shown in those prototypes focuses on several key changes, including using the left hand for navigation and refining a query as well as splitting the results into various categories. In the Taylor Swift page, for example, the left-hand navigation allows a user to quickly shift to images, songs, or lyrics by Swift. The results, meanwhile, are also split into different sub-categories.
Click here to see a larger version of the page. Once you're there, click on the magnifying lens icon to boost the image size.
(Credit: Microsoft)Another screenshot, of an Audi search, breaks things down into an initial result with facts such as price and fuel economy pulled out in bold, followed by general Web results, then results by category, such as Audi parts, used Audis, and Audi accessories.
The company is also expected to rely heavily on technology from the many search companies it has purchased. The health search engine from Medstory and travel engine Farecast are already part of Microsoft's search products. The next version of Live Search, which may or may not use the Kumo name, is expected to draw on those as well as semantic search technology from last year's acquisition of Powerset.
Mehdi said the new product reflects the fact that roughly half of all queries are actually repeats of earlier questions as well as the fact that people would like to get more out of a search query than just a link to a page that might have the answer.
"It is an awesome keyword-to-URL-mapper," Mehdi said, referring to the search engine of today. "What it is not well suited for is cases where you are looking for more than just a URL, (if) you are looking to get some insight or you want to actually make a decision. Our interpretation of the data is there is a lot of unmet need."
Microsoft has been saying for years, though, that search could be dramatically better than it has been. But, at least thus far, the company has failed to deliver a product that consumers feel proves that thesis to be true.
Mehdi said that the company thinks this time it may be able to make its case. Plus, he said, the company doesn't need to persuade the whole world to drop Google. What Microsoft does need, he says, is for some vocal minority to decide its search engine is better than its rival's.
"We need a fan base of people that love what we are doing," Mehdi said. It doesn't even need a lot of fans, he said, just a loyal following that can serve as the service's champions.
But the company also needs to grow faster than it can just by working on the product itself. That's where the company's giant cash hoard comes in handy.
For starters, the company is reportedly planning a $100 million ad campaign to accompany a mid-year release of the product. Beyond that, Microsoft has been paying heavily to make its search engine the default on new computers and devices, including deals with Dell and Lenovo.
Mehdi didn't confirm the ad spending or say when the new service will debut, but did say that Microsoft is putting more resources into the coming launch.
"We felt like we had enough now with this effort to get behind it and make a big push and that's what we are going to do," Mehdi said.
The biggest potential for growing Microsoft's share, though, would be some sort of tie-up with its nearest rival, Yahoo. Microsoft has been pushing for a search deal ever since it failed to buy all of Yahoo last year. It has had occasional talks with Yahoo since then, although things had been relatively quiet in recent months as Yahoo replaced Chief Executive Jerry Yang with Carol Bartz.
Last week, though, it was reported that the discussions were back on again in recent months, including a face-to-face meeting between Bartz and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
The level of interest in the Zune is at zero %.
It would be at negative their market share if the questionnaire would ask "How many of you are planning to toss your Zune into the garbage and get something else, Anything else..."
Their success in search has been and will be the same.
People don't LIKE monopolies anymore that they would buy bread made by the same people who make their toilet paper.
Example?
"The level of interest in the Zune is at zero %."
Reality its 8.7% Market Share enough to cement the #2 spot in Hard Drive based MP3 Players.
"People don't LIKE monopolies anymore that they would buy bread made by the same people who make their toilet paper."
A poor example since many large companies own many other small companies. They all may have different names but they all are owned by the same company.
A good example is, a beer company, that own's Milling, Bread making, Cheese, Candy, Petrolium Byproduct, Glass Making, Toilet paper.
So in this case yes the same company that makes bread does make toilet paper. In this case though you all see it as Microsoft, you don't see the Interbrew Label, Mcgavin's bakery, Laura Secord...etc..etc under the same names. But it does not mean they are not all controlled by one.
1. Ask any expert on branding and they will tell you that its at the top of the list with regards to product recognition.
2. I don't know what MP3 player you prefer, but I have a fairly good idea. However, if you visit any Zune enthusiast site you will find that the interest and anticipation of the next Zune is at an all time high. I won't bother listing the sites, but you can instantly locate them by doing a quick search for Zune on www.live.com
3. There are two areas that Live search is already leaps and bounds ahead of Google, or anyone else for that matter, including breath of content and accuracy of search and ease of use, and its images and video. Add some of the features they are about to implement and my guess is that Microsoft will quickly achieve the modest goals stated in the article.
4. Google is already a monopolist in search, so that blows your "nobody likes monopolists" theory right out the window.
Google has a major search monopoly, and they "do [plenty of] evil", but everybody ignores them and lets them go. Apple has a strong monopoly with the iPod, even though time and time again people find better products with lesser brand recognition do to the free market that is the world outside Apple.
Microsoft has been villainized for issues long since gone. They ahve a monopoly with Windows, but I don't anymore with Internet Explorer: other options are widespread. Even Windows is losing share to Mac OS, due to people's love affair with everything iPod-related. The EU loves to sue Microsoft to fund their government (since member countries don't all support it!)
Then we have Walmart, another monopoly with artificially low prices due to lack of unions (which is usually good, but not in Walmart's case) and hiring of illegal immigrants, plus a fantastic supply chain system. Nobody wants to both them though.
Lowes and Home Depot have a monopoly between them, if they choose to act on it.
The Associated Press and Reuters have a news monopoly, in that hardly anybody gets news from anywhere else. They supply even the largest newspapers with news. If news companies would just go find their own news, they wouldn't be in the financial slump they are now, as currently they kill each other by all having the same news.
There are lots of monopolies in the world that are liked.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10216031-1.html
Statiscitcally, NO ONE WANTS A ZUNE
I don't think it has to do with Monopolies, they just got in the game too late.
Your bread comment though, didn't make any sense.
Besides, you want a real perspective on monopolies, go to your local comic book shop. As them about the "Diamond monopoly" and you'll find out how quickly nobody loves any monopoly.
So, put the Kool-Aid down before writing something at CNET with false facts and biased information.
"Google has a major search monopoly"
According to the article, Google has 64.2%.
"don't anymore with Internet Explorer"
So IE has less than 64.2% market share? What's the
Your bias is showing...and you should probably look up monopoly in the dictionary.
There are plenty of alternatives to Google, which is free anyways so who cares.
Internet Explorer is still widespread, but Firefox is big enough and obviously available to so many people that there isn't much of a monopoly left for IE. Yes, web developers still have to make sure that they design for IE and Firefox. When I look at the browsers my fellow (not-at-all-techie) college students use, very very few of them use IE. Most use FF. That's a sign of lack of monopoly, and future lack of monopoly as it builds in young consumers.
Monopolies tend to be perpetuated by lack of awareness. Where most people are ignorant of alternatives or convinced that none are worth using (regardless of the truth), as with Google search and Apple iPod, there monopoly continues. Where there is a high livel of awareness, and a growing one, of alternatives and their worth, as with Internet Explorer and Firefox, monopoly doesn't effectively exist.
Whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly is *legal fact* as determined in a court of law. And as the word "monopoly" is a legal term, the courts are the only body that has the right to determine whether a company is a monopoly.
Microsoft is a monopoly. That is not debatable.
it may have a large share in the U.S but outside not as much !
plus there's alwasy competition for the iPod on every Front
So how can you even call it a Monopoly
Same goes for Google as well
you MS bias is showing
They're pirating the code off OS X Leopard as fast they can, and then are trying to insert it into the spaghetti code that is Windows as fast as they can.--
A) MS spends more money each year helping developers developer (VS, .net, millions upon millions of free libraries) then all of the other tech companies combined.. cut them a little slack.
And B) Everyone takes good ideas and uses them... everyone. It works both ways
the IT industry and their desktop product's 90% users around the world. Instead, every step they have taken
has got the the media, developers and users to bring out the staves, sticks and bricks for MS. Steve Ballmer is an
ugly, unlovable creature. Vista, to take one personal example from my home, was a product that youngsters paid
to get off their PCs and laptops. Linux and SCO is still worth remembering, simply because it is one in a long series of events that catalogue the company's hamhandedness, and its inability to come to terms with the fact that the IT industry and the world has changed. Warren Buffet may possibly still be the richest person, who cares? The commissioned 'independent' studies about opensource, about total cost of ownership, the threat to sue opensource users because 247 of MS patents were being infringed, all these and more, reflect a company that's still to rule every segment as the No. 1, no matter if it is attainable, or not.
Which brings us to Zune... what is that? LOL!
You are right. Microsoft hasn't been on a good track through Vista, but they still could change that: the Windows 7 beta is quite enjoyable to use, as is Windows Server 2008.
They are definitely anti-competitive regarding linux, but patents are an important aspect of business and have been invaluable in building the American economy to the strength it is today (despite our current, completely unrelated downturn). Apple would sue to protect its patents, too, like the iPod scrollwheel.
I love free stuff, but I also want to know that I get credit for what I produce, that other people don't get all teh benefit. That is the value of a patent and copyright system that many linux and open source aficionados choose to ignore. Many want free access to everything, but everything costs time and money to produce. It's one thing if your work is a hobby, it's another entirely when you need to provide for yourself and a family. If someone writes a book and wishes to sell it, they should have the absolute right to all money made from that which is their own. Likewise with software and hardware invention. It's unfortunate that the abundance of freeware has made the shareware business mostly obsolete. Sure it wasn't all the greatest, fanciest stuff, but it gave more people opportunities to expand their lives.
As to the Zune, I had one, liked it for the most part, but I prefer Creative's Zen, Zen Vision:M, and Zen X-Fi. iPods are pretty cool, too.
1. Go back to school and learn "reading comprehension".
2. Open a dictionary and look up the word "monopoly".
You obviously have no understanding of the concept whatsoever and you're just embarrassing yourself.
bring in hotmail to the top of the search list.
I agree with those that think that MS should forget about search, games, phones, etc. until they can product a secure, stable operating system that businesses will buy.
Incidentally, same goes with Firefox: Internet Explorer puts up a good fight (I prefered IE 7 to FF 2), but Opera is amazing. It has all the best features (which it developed, "stolen" by firefox) and is much faster than IE and FF. Opera 9.x is so much better than <= 8, which I didn't like at all.
Get real. I run into people like you who always say things like that, but in actual practice, you end up looking about as competent as Krod Mandoon!
Now, search in the help in Windows 2008/Vista become as crap as MSDN/KB search. You get lots of links that do't help a little bit.
"Years ago, before Microsoft sent all the jobs to India, I worked for an Outsourcer here in the US that had the contract to do tech support for Windows residential users. "
Interesting. I know exactly who you are referring to- and that company's contract was terminated due to poor performance and customer satisfaction with the company running it. Microsoft went to another vendor that did a better job at it than the one you are referring to.
Your comments sound very much like sour grapes.
Who gives a rat's arse about branding and touchy feely helper modes? When Live Search starts producing better results than Google on Microsoft technical content, and dare I say their press relseases, I *might* consider taking it seriously. Until then, **** my radar.
That was just one example btw, people who know what search terms to type in to Google to get meaningful results won't touch Live with a ten foot pole.
Quantcast and Compete both publish public estimates of how many people visit the major search services. With 100 million estimated monthly visitors, Microsoft runs second behind Google and Yahoo! is a distant third.
People are indeed using Microsoft search. The media is just looking at the wrong data.
"A media measurement service that lets advertisers view audience reports on millions of websites and services."
Okey. Keywords: advertisers, audience, reports, millions of websites.
Sounds like mercadocrap to me. Translation.
Advertiser ==> Microsoft.
Audience ==> Microsoft Loyalists
Reports ==> Payed Reportes (By Whom? Could that be also Microsoft)
Millions of Websites ==> Could all those end in microsoft.com (maybe)
And by the way, you said "publish public estimates of how many people visit"... estimates... could there be anything distorting those estimates. $$$ I don't know $$$
In a sense you are right. There is not a strict monopoly by either company, but I think there is near monopoly, in that such a large portion of market share wields with it quite a bit of power, if used effectively. There are leaks in the Google and Apple dams, and a few small streams that flow around them, but most of the water is under their control, and most users don't even consider other options, hence effect monopoly.
The fact that "google" has become synonymous with "search" in our vocabulary, along with "iPod" for "mp3 player", neither of which company invented its field, says a lot about the power of those two brands. Competing products get little more than a few news articles, even if they ARE better.
Given the problem with monopolies is not their existence but malevolence, I think the United States today has relatively few actual monopolies, at least not ones that abuse their power. Walmart may be the closest one I know at the moment, providing easy access to below-cost products, but even there they have a lot of competition in bigger supermarket chains and department stores. Google is trying to acquire a monopoly in book digitization for its own monetary gain, but Congress may yet prevent that.
It's gotten a lot worse over the years as the Google results become skewed towards their ratings systems and whomever pays for the highest standing in the results, but it's still pretty relevant in general.
I think internet searching overall has gotten worse as website promoters have learned how to game the system to skew the results regardless which service you prefer.
Clear your browser cache then load Google or live, which comes up the fastest? Google. No pictures, no word ads, just search.
Microsoft does many things great, MS Office (until 2007) was great, XP fine. But so often they forget the KISS principal.
Microsoft was never first in Personal Computing but it was Bill Gates' vision to have one PC for everyone and now Windows is the most used OS. Google was never the first search engine but was first to monetize on search and now it's #1 in Search Engine. Apple was never the first HDD based MP3 player but was the first to tightly integrate iTunes with the iPod and create a platform for legally downloading music and now it's #1 in HDD and Flash based MP3 players.
This is one excellent reason for copyrights and patents. A brilliant inventor may be a buffoon of a salesman. Without patents, anybody could sell anything: salesmen would rule the world. With patents, product creators have more of a chance for financial benefit, protection against undeserved competition. It's not foolproof, of course, nor always beneficial to society, but extra time before someone mimics your product is certainly welcome.
I think the same applies to Microsoft on search.
Its not a problem of style, speed, accuracy or even relevance. Its a matter of being there at the right time with a good product nobody whats to change because the alternatives don't offer enough of the experience with enough of a gain to merit a change.
If the above sounds familiar, it should. It's the exact same problem that Linux has on the desktop compared to Windows. People don't change just because they are akin to it. They do because "it matters". That reason has kept Linux at the bay regarding OS, and that same argument is gonna keep Microsoft at bay in search for a while.
In essence the problem is mindset and Microsoft should end co-branding its search with Windows, with Live and even with Microsoft itself. It's time to end the branding madness of the 90's and 00's (exemplified by such beasts as Microsoft Windows Live Search Cashback).
Microsoft need to get back to basics in branding and start using simple direct wording in tune with the U.S.-led Depression Level 2008-2009 Recession Downturn.
My suggestions: convert Windows Live Search into an Office-like name: e.g. Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Investigate? Inlook? Enquire?
Or use a trail based branding: Internet Explorer aka Internet Digger? Internet Prospector? Internet Advisor?
My two cents.
I can google a service patch in msn and it takes me to an article about that service patch.
I visit that link and it has tons and tons of information about the patch but is there ANY download link of the patch itself? NO! Using MSN search or any search from and made by Microsoft is frustrating at best. Its like a chat room that talks about pretty women but nobody posts any pictures of those pretty women they talk about.
When I search for same service pack in Google I get what I want and it is the download link so I can apply it to my OS.
- by pentest April 13, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
- MS search is behind so much because their search is sorely lacking.. A detailed discussion is far beyond the scope of CNET, but suffice it to say that the reason MS search isn't up to par because MS doesn't have the expertise.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)This is not a marketing problem.