Microsoft’s Live Search has started out as something they considered extremely promising but, unfortunately, things didn’t exactly turn out the way these folks would have liked them to. Let’s face it: as far as search is concerned, Live Search doesn’t represent anything, especially if you were to compare it to the big G.
Under such circumstances, we have the following scenario: a company with a lot of money on their hands (Microsoft) sees that one of its projects is as close to becoming a flop as it gets. And, with all of the possibilities out there, they choose to go with what clearly represents a pathetic attempt at bribery.
If your project is so bad that you have to bribe people to use it, doesn’t that mean that it’s back to the drawing board? It seems that the folks over at Microsoft see things differently and they actually think that bribing people with a couple of bucks (literally) represents a viable long-term approach.
If your product is bad, if the brand is bad and if everything else which has to do with it is just plain bad or, in other words, if the foundation of the project is a shaky one to begin with, wouldn’t going directly to the core of the issue be a wiser approach? Apparently, that is not the case, at least as far as Microsoft is concerned.
Can they actually achieve some worthwhile results by living in denial and trying to hide all of their problems behind an insignificant bribe? If any of the fundamental rules and business principles apply (and you can rest assured that they do), then let’s just say that everything will backfire.
Have they managed to solve their problems through this bribe? Have they managed to convince people to stop using Google and use their product in order to save a couple of bucks? Of course not and, in the end, the only thing they’ve managed to do is paint a clear picture of what the rich try to do when they become as desperate as it gets.