Blogs

Posted by unregistered user at 3/28/07 1:15 p.m.

When I worked there we did background documents for virtually every customer or partner meeting. Invariably, the exec never bothered reading it and the actual background occured verbally 5 minutes before the meeting. Typical big company make-work programs. I don't see anything sinister in it - it's not like the media doesn't usually come to the same interview with an unspoken agenda of its own...

Posted by unregistered user at 3/28/07 10:40 p.m.

Can someone please tell me why we still use Waggener Edstrom? Yeah yeah I know, Pam Edstrom was at Microsoft years ago. But look at the job they've done for Microsoft. Not that good huh?

I guess they don't have to worry about losing the contract..

Posted by unregistered user at 3/29/07 1:32 p.m.

The irony in the story is how bizantine the Waggener Edstrom process is to "prepare" for interviews. And the company wonders why they come across cold and unfeeling in many instances. It is because the 1980s, CIA-style briefing approach is the old model. People, especially reporters, want and need authenticity. This is no way to be authentic. An interview prepared in this manner is like saying the tv show "Survivor" is actual reality.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/29/07 3:22 p.m.

Wired overplayed their hand on this. This was a pure publicity stunt - and it backfired. If you look closely, the day they posted the doc it also went into headline status on their site and the nbote along with it is the most dramatic thing I have seen. C'mon - aligned againt him??? It was a basic briefing doc. I don't see them posting all of their emails and premise pieces for the story. Also, the whole notion of this being a conspiracy is lame. Of course people from the company would chat with editors about story ideas. Clearly, MS should no longer bother engaging Wired in this way. At least that would be my advice to them...