Kumo to be dubbed Bing, AdAge says
This search result for Zune, seen on Live Search last week by enthusiast Ryan Rea, bears a significant resemblance to the Kumo prototype that Microsoft has been testing internally (click for larger version).
(Credit: Ryan Rea (aka volvoshine))Microsoft has been testing its search engine under the name Kumo, but if a report in Advertising Age is on target, it will launch under the name "Bing."
The advertising trade magazine says Microsoft will spend $80 million to $100 million on print, online, TV and outdoor ads touting its latest search effort. The magazine notes that figure is higher than most consumer product launches. Rival Google, meanwhile, spent just $25 million total on advertising last year, AdAge said.
Microsoft declined to comment on the report. The software maker is said to be planning to announce details on its search plans at this week's D: All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif., where CEO Steve Ballmer is slated to speak.
Bing was among several names said to be in the running for the new search engine. Microsoft had said that the Kumo name that was being used internally was not necessarily the moniker the company would ultimately use for the product.
In addition to the internal testing, Microsoft has been publicly trying out some of the concepts it plans to introduce with Kumo, including a left-hand navigation pane to move between different types of searches as well as to related queries.
AdAge said that JWT will be handling the ad campaign, which the magazine said won't mention Google by name. "Instead, they'll focus on planting the idea that today's search engines don't work as well as consumers previously thought by asking them whether search (aka Google) really solves their problems," the magazine wrote.
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. 
I'd like Microsoft to tell us why they keep changing the name of Microsoft search all the time.
First they had msn search.
Then they changed the name to live search.
And now they want to change the name again to Kumo/Bing.?
This is the height of stupidity and idiocy.
What on earth is wrong with the name "live search"?
And what was wrong with the name "msn search" before that?
Everyone knew what msn was, so msn search told internet users that this was the search engine from msn, no?
How much did it cost Microsoft to build the live search brand from scratch, after switching from msn search?
And how much is it going to cost Microsoft to switch AGAIN from live search to Kumo/Bing?
Has Microsoft not even learnt anything from their disastrous switch from msn search to live search?
Has it occurred to Microsoft that merely switching to live search did not gain Microsoft any market share in search, and in fact ended up costing Microsoft some big market share loses for Live search?
Does it occur to Microsoft that they have consistently lost market share every year since they switched from msn search to live search, thus proving that name switches have no effect whatsoever on market share if the fundamental search technology is still inadequate?
It's like if Zimbabwe changed the name of their hyper inflated currency to the "dollar", would that suddenly make that currency worthwhile? Of course not.
Merely changing the name of an inadequate product never won any market share for anyone before.
When is Microsoft going to get it into their thick heads that it?s not so much how the search results are displayed that counts, its how RELEVANT and accurate the search results are. I don't give 2 hoots if the search results appear by the side of the page or whatever. What I care about is to find what I am looking for in the results shown, as quickly as possible.
I can easily make one prediction here: Like all the other " super secret, new, improved, super duper search" engines from Microsoft, this new search engine is NOT gonna win any market share for Microsoft in search.
But I think that there is a feeling by consumers and Microsoft themselves that being able to say "I Google'd it, or "Bing'd" it in this case is how folks begin to remember your branding. In their eyes this catch word may help them find an audience that remembers their name. Of course it's not just about the name, it's also extremely important that the service itself provide features that resonate.
Live Search is a superior Video and Image search experience over Google, but has lagged in results and in my opinion, the ability to give you an actual answer to your search rather than a bunch of links to hopefully get the answer. My ideal search engine would provide a definition, the answer to a keyword phrase, and categorized links. It appears from the screen shots Microsoft is headed in this direction. I'm looking foward to using it to see how close Microsoft comes to the ideal for me.
Why waste even more money on yet another "redranding" again at all?
Especially since Microsoft has already done a rebranding of it's search engine before, and got exactly nowhere from that rebranding?
Exactly what's wrong with the name "live search"?
It's another bone headed decision from Microsoft's search people if ever I saw one.
Just tell me this will ya?
Exactly what dd they gain from that redbanding the last time?
And how much money did they have to waste re-educating the public all over again, that "live serach" was indeed the old "msn search"?
Rebranding is an expensive business.
Why is Microsoft busy squandering shareholders money on bone headed decisions that neither increase shareholder value, market share, or profits, and only end up stacking up even nore losses in search?
@ Super2online :" Second is the Live name itself just didn't resonate with users."
So who made the stupid decision to change the name to "live search" and waste hundreds of millions marketing that brand then? And why is Steve Ballmer asleept at the switch even as Microsoft's share price continues to go nowhere, and losses in Microsoft search continue to pile up, even as Google's own search profits continue to grow from already super high levels?
It's not about what they gained, it's about the need to gain. When you're behind, you don't sit on your laurels, you attempt to fix whatever problems exist. As I stated, Windows Live did a miserable job of bringing a cohesive set of services to bear on a market that was begging for what they offered which would have helped Live Search tremendously. When they finally did get there act together, their numbers were mush worse. Adding the semantic search features of Powerset (which is the direction that all search engines are headed according to the analysts) which is included in Kumo/Bing and combining this with Windows Live's social networking (which is a very powerful draw) and tweaking the presentation of results should finally net Microsoft a much better chance of success.
Check the latest post by Robert Scoble about the huge swing in direction that Google is about to take towards social networking if you don't think it's massively important.
As far as wasting money goes, most people that I have talked to use it from MSN, Hotmail, Messenger, and Maps and don't type in Live.com directly. No retraining neccessary, hence no loss of money. For those that do go to live directly they do so for the advantages that Live search offers and will continue to do so no matter what the name is. Also every article I have read, and there may be a few that disagree state that Microsoft completely missed the boat on Live.com because they did so little advertising on it.
Rebranding may be an expensive business when you are a no name, but that's not the case with Microsoft. Every one in the world knows them, and how to get to Microsoft properties should they want to. IE5-6-7-8 all include the abiliity and it's included in the OS. You can do it from all the afore mentioned apps as well. Also any profits lost can be made up a thousand fold in advertising revenue when things turn around.
As for stupid decisions, Microsoft is not known for getting it right the first time. What they are known for is getting right the second and third time around, and dominating the market once that happens. It doesn't always work, but when it does, they win massively. So the decision to continue to work on this is simply a no brainer. I could site example after example, but there is no need to.
"It's not about what they gained, it's about the need to gain."
When did changing the name of an inadequate product ever gain any market share for anything?
@ Super2online" When you're behind, you don't sit on your laurels, you attempt to fix whatever problems exist."
Not sitting on your laurels is one thing.
Resorting to gimmicky, easy options, tactics like changing names at the drop of a hat is another. It never worked the last time they did it. It won't work ths time either.
:@ Super2online: "As I stated, Windows Live did a miserable job of bringing a cohesive set of services to bear on a market that was begging for what they offered which would have helped Live Search tremendously"
At the time they were claming Window Live was the savior, and it was going to turn Microsoft search round. I don't see anything they are doing different right now. It?s going to be yet another claim from Microsoft that is not going to be borne out by the market performance come one year's time.
@ Super2online:"As far as wasting money goes, most people that I have talked to use it from MSN, Hotmail, Messenger, and Maps and don't type in Live.com directly"
Oh puleeze!
II was using Hotmail before Microsoft even bought hotmail 10 years ago. It's got nothing to do with the "Live" branding or with Microsoft search. If anything, it's Hotmail that is bringing search traffic to Microsoft, not the other way round.
@ Super2online:"Rebranding may be an expensive business when you are a no name, but that's not the case with Microsoft. Every one in the world knows them, and how to get to Microsoft properties should they want to"
Precisely the point. The fact that everyone knows the Microsoft brand is a very sad commentary on how Microsoft has managed to screw up their search business after over 10 years of trying. Given their brand recognition, and the billions of dollars they have wasted on search, they should be a heck of a lot further ahead than merely 9% of the market, coupled with huge losses every quarter. It's a really pathetic commentary on the people running Microsoft right now.
Microsoft is currently run by overpaid idiots and morons, who get paid a fortune whether they screw up and cost shareholders a fortune or not. It's time some of those clowns who keep costing shareholders billions year after year, got given their marching orders, and sent to go grow tomatoes or do something less harmful.
@ Super2online: "As for stupid decisions, Microsoft is not known for getting it right the first time. What they are known for is getting right the second and third time around"
Microsoft has been in search since 1996 at least, and they are even further behind in market share today, than they were in just a few years back. The only difference is, shareholders are hundreds of billions of dollars poorer today, in part due to the constant screw up in the search business, and billions of dollars of losses on search, with no progress being made whatsoever.
Wow... you have some serious issues with the idea that a company be permitted to change the name of a service in an attempt to improve things. I'm not exactly sure why you are so focused on a simple name as opposed to the actual product and its use.
Personally, I don't care what it's called. I only care if it works. I would like to believe most sane people would believe similarly.
Remember that nobody knew what 'Google' was either when it came out. People didn't get hung up over an odd name though- they just tried it and kept using it to the point that the name is now a verb.
The incredible lameness that has come to define Microsoft as a brand... Bing, Bob, Vista, etc
It's like they really are that Johnathan Hodgeman character or something.
I've got another one... it's like on the Friends episode where Chandler (Bing) is trying to make the ******** sound of a whip cracking and he goes "whoo-pah!" and then Joey exclaims, "You can't do ANYTHING!" [CNET editors' note: Offensive content deleted.]
This is the difference: Google search is the best search engine out there right now. You can call it "fried chicken" search and it's still gonna get more search users than Microsoft.
Microsoft's own serach engines have just not been as good. Steve Ballmer simply doesn't have a clue what he is doing. Simply screaming "Windows, Windows, Windows" till you lose your voice, while wasting gargantuan amounts of sharholder's money on search, even while delivering an inferior product is not going to get you market share in search is it?
I agree with you to a point, however "Live it" just doesn't work, but Badda Bing I found it on Bing or, I "Bing'd it" definately does. Unfortunately it appears that you just are willing to recognize that, however that doesn't make it so. Microsoft is also comprised of many more people that have a fair say in what happens with these types of decisions. Ozzie is still the chief software architect, Gates is still on the board, and the full board still has it's say.
Shareholders purchase stock because they want to, if things aren't going the way they want, they can sell. However, lots of people are interested in Microsoft because they are not a one trick pony when it comes to profits like Google is. The are the market leader in consumer OS's, business Os's, business suites, collaboration services and software and much more. As for Live being an inferior product, time will tell, the story certainly isn't over yet.
:" but Badda Bing I found it on Bing or, I "Bing'd it" definately does"
"Badda Bing'd it" is going to gain market share for Microsoft's search is it?
I want come of what you are smoking dude.
That is just exactly the problem with Microsoft right now. Form over substance, and gimmicks over real improvements.
Look, no one uses " I Yahoo'd it" for Yahoo search, yet Yahoo search has over twice the market share that Microsoft has, no?
It's got nothing to do with how the name of the search engine sounds like, and everything to do with the quality and relevance of the search results. No one gives two hoots what your search is called, so far it gives them what they want.
@ Super2online:"Ozzie is still the chief software architect"
That may be exactly what the problem is. The guy is more concerned with "visions" and pie in the sky projects, than with making products that actually take out the opposition and gain market shar, and make real hard cold cash.
@ Super2online:"Shareholders purchase stock because they want to, if things aren't going the way they want, they can sell."
Who is going to pay back the billions of dollars that millions of hard working Americans, who as shareholders who have lost over half the money they invested in Microsoft stock over 10 years ago, since when Microsoft stock has fallen by over 60% due to lack of vision, constant screw ups, incompetence and sheer stupidity of the jokers who have been running Microsoft?
"It's got nothing to do with how the name of the search engine sounds like, and everything to do with the quality and relevance of the search results. No one gives two hoots what your search is called, so far it gives them what they want. "
Then why are you complaining about the name? Your entire point of all your comments is that Microsoft has come up with a name that you don't like and that people will not use it because of that name.
"Look, no one uses " I Yahoo'd it" for Yahoo search, yet Yahoo search has over twice the market share that Microsoft has, no? "
It sure worked for Google. Google is a verb in common usage these days to mean searching for a term. "Just Google it." I would say that was very successful- and if you do not, just look at what company is the #1 search provider out there today. That speaks pretty highly of their success.
I am not complaining about any name.
I am strongly protesting the mindless, constant name changes that Microsoft search seems to undergo every few years. Why the heck can't they settle on one name and stick with it?
How do we even know they are not going to come back 2 years from now, with yet another stupid name change again, and spend yet another hundreds of millions promoting a totally new name again?
@ Vegaman_Dan :"Your entire point of all your comments is that Microsoft has come up with a name that you don't like and that people will not use it because of that name. "
Nope.
You obviously can neither read nor comprehend what you read. If you think you have any comprehension skills, read what I wrote again will ya?
@ Vegaman_Dan :"It sure worked for Google."
Wrong conclusion.
You can call Google, "Sergey Brin search" today, and it wouldn't affect their huge market share one iota. They will still dominate search.
You are concentrating on things that don't matter, while ignoring what really matters in search.. People don't use Google because it's got a cute name or whatever. They use Google because ir delivers very relevant search results very fast.
or Potlight?
i can hardly wait until the Beast is dead...
OS X? Apple has made it very clear they are not interested in dealing with the enterprise marketplace or do what it takes to provide the service levels that are demanded by users of Linux and Windows in the enterprise market at this time.
Linux? They can help the business side, but all their attempts so far to be a consumer level OS have failed. That could change however if there was any attempt to unify the various forks and branches, getting rid of the devisiveness that gives the general public the viewpoint of a herd of cats without any ability to herd them together into a single supportable model.
It's like their ultimate goal is just to beat Google in coming up with a ridiculous name for their search engine.
And honestly...I don't think I'll ever be able to say Bing without thinking of Bling.
I don't have a problem with Microsoft being in search. There is a lot of money to be made in search....when it's done right. It's the way they have been going about it that I have a problem with. The executives charged with bringing Microsoft search back from the wilderness, increasing market share and making Microsoft search relevant and profitable have been incompetent and bone headed to put it mildly. The trouble is, the very people who screwed up Microsoft search and continue to screw up Microsoft search, are the very ones being promoted to take on even more responsibility in that business. A prime example is a guy called Yusuf Mehdi, who's been in Microsoft search for ages, and been part of every bone headed decision and screw up they made, and still ends up getting promoted anyways. Does Steve Ballmer have any clue what he is doing? Not a chance.
Any other company, even a startup, after having had billions of dollars invested in search, and having lost to the tune of billions of dollars in search like Microsoft has, would have had a heck of lot higher market share than Live search does right now. Because of Microsoft's deep poockets, the idiots that are running the Microsoft search business, feel no urgency to make money, or gain market share. They are happy enough to pocket their fat salaries at the end of every month, even whille losing billions of dollars on search every year, with no sign whatsoever of turning things round, after 10 years of trying. If anything, Microsoft search market share keeps hitting new lows every month. Ridiculous.
ba da boom
Rimshot, please.
Look at Google. The interface is smooth, minimal. The name has been consistent. The search results just work elegantly. Good luck, Microsoft.
P.S. While I'm not a huge fan of Google's other non-search properties, Google Search seems to be the best in town.
Bingo!
I wish Microsoft would just get that fact into their heads, and really do something about it for a change.
@ jaxstephens :"Look at Google. The interface is smooth, minimal"
The Google interface, fonts and even the color of the fonts alone are bette, more user friendly than anything Microsoft search has ever come up with, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or cost much money to change the fonts, color and interface of Live search to make them look more like Google's. That should be done for starters, then the real work should be done on getting much better/ more relevant search results to make them as good as Google's, before even dreaming about getting better than Google. They have been talking about overtaking Google for long enough, without even getting close to being as good as Google is.
By the way, the live recent changes seem to have problems with some existing compressing API (for gzip, i.e., http compression). I would like http://www.elookinto.com that has one search to get all results from all these big three search engines (google, yahoo and live).
- by Girvy June 7, 2009 8:19 PM PDT
- With one of the most famous names in showbusiness, I'm assuming Microsoft's new search engine can sing?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)