Microsoft today unveiled video footage of an exercise called the Mojave Experiment, where unwitting Windows users were tricked into watching a Vista demo while told it was something else. The experiment's subjects were all people who had a negative impression of Vista but no personal experience with it. One short demo later almost all of them reported a far more favorable impression of the operating system "Mojave" than they held of Vista.
The videos are reminiscent of the infamous Milgram Experiment, where Stanford researcher Stanley Milgram fooled subjects into believing that a fake situation was actually real. That experiment has been the subject of decades of ethics debates - Microsoft's Mojave was just creepy. Note: Several readers have responded in comments saying that this is not a legitimate comparison to draw. We will take your thoughts into consideration before drawing wild comparisons between tech marketing campaigns and arguably egregious violations of individual rights in the future. :)
The Milgram Experiment was one in which subjects were told that they had to administer a shock to someone who gave the wrong answers to questions they were asked. The subjects objected but were told that the test's authority required that they administer the shocks. In fact the people getting the shocks were only actors but the moral of the story was that ordinary people were willing to do terrible things if they were told they had to be an authority figure.
Milgram's was a powerfully disturbing study but the point is that it is ethically questionable to subject people to research based on a false premise.
In the Mojave Experiment the only people likely to be subjected to pain will be the future users of the Microsoft operating system.
The lesson of Mojave may be that computer users are highly susceptible to a short, slick demonstration of new technology. It could also be that they are highly susceptible to reviews written by other people. The writings of experts based on their tests and experience seems a far more valid basis for the formation of an opinion, however.
Looking at the faces of the Mojave test subjects when they are told the truth, it appears they know they are being made to look like fools. It's not clear what that foolishness is based on, but it is clear that Microsoft's condescending attitude remains consistent right through this newest marketing campaign.
That's my take on it, but judge for yourself.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Wow. I'm really shocked by this. Not the campaign, but your article. Comparing a relatively normal marketing research practice to a morally questionable psychological experiment seems a bit harsh.
To start with, the people in the Microsoft campaign had to agree to share their impressions after filming. If they chose to not have their impressions aired, they could state that is the case, and MS wouldn't be able to use their footage. In the study you reference, these people were pressured into doing something obviously morally objectionable. Using an OS is hardly close to shocking someone and believing that you are causing physical harm, and in some cases, thinking you are killing someone.
The people in Milgram's study were also adversely affected by the punishment they had to dole out. I seriously doubt the the MS employees or the Mojave participants now have to seek professional help to rectify what they did.
This kind of marketing practice has been used many times in many different forms. Remember the Pepsi challenge? Same thing. No one went home crying after that. No long term psychological damage was caused.
You do make a valid point: it isn't clear what point the campaign makes. Are people just too susceptible to blogger's opinions? Are first impressions that long-lasting? Are sales reps just too damned good at their jobs? Possibly all the above. But that is an entirely different conversation, and quite frankly, whatever point you were trying to make is undercut by the argument you use.
I have no vested interest in MS, I do not care whether this campaign is successful (in fact, I think it probably won't be). The only reason I am criticizing the article is because the basis seems absurd to me. I don't see what is unethical about showing people sales clips, in particular when there is full disclosure by the end of the process and Microsoft's own literature professes that people did not get to play with the OS, they simply got to see a video. What I do see a problem with is the comparison that is drawn in this article.
Posted by: Jesse James | July 29, 2008 11:59 AM
I agree with Jesse. This is the equivalent of the blind taste test and not comparable to the Milgram Experiment.
Microsoft got themselves into this mess, so I'm not prone to sympathy for them about Vista, but the backlash against it has gotten a little out of hand. They have to do something and if they went directly after Apple and the "Get a Mac" ads, they would get slammed even harder. These new ads may not be perfect, but it's a start.
Posted by: Drew | July 29, 2008 12:37 PM
I have used Vista, and I don't find it all that bad. I don't think that Microsoft is building the OS for a target audience composed of technically savvy bloggers.
This is the first OS where my mom hasn't been able to nuke her laptop with virus and corrupt configurations even after a few months of usage. In my book, that makes it a success.
Posted by: Vaibhav | July 29, 2008 12:52 PM
It's quite obvious what this test proves. People will make accusations and presumptions of a product despite the fact of ever using it. After actually using it and the facts were revealed, they found their presumptions were wrong. Read the facts page, http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/facts/. It's quite astonishing.
Posted by: Michael | July 29, 2008 1:08 PM
I watched a lot of the videos and I also thought that the experiment was creepy and condescending. I think there are a lot of uninformed people that have made assumptions about Vista without using it, and it was these people that the experiment were targeting. But the big question is what was the experiment trying to prove? Vista fanboys will say that it proves that Vista is awesome, but all it proves is that people can be wowed by a 10 minute demo.
Posted by: Stuart Maxwell
|
July 29, 2008 1:13 PM
Absolutely brilliant piece of marketing.
Posted by: Jamie | July 29, 2008 1:16 PM
I've been using Vista for more than a year now and I'm very happy with it.
I often talk to people who say that they won't buy a new computer with Vista installed because they only hear bad things about it. These people don't have a clue what they are talking about. They don't read blogs. They don't read informed reviews. They jump on a bandwagon of Vista is terrible (it's a Microsoft product, stupid!), but they've never seen the OS.
There clearly is a perception problem around Vista, because I can't see what everybody is complaining about in Vista?
Maybe this will persuade some people to actually look at the OS before deciding to stick with XP on that new computer they are buying.
Posted by: Henry | July 29, 2008 1:19 PM
I also disagree with you on the comparisson with the milgram experiment. But I do have to say that your direction is right: Microsoft displays it's arrogance (in german we have the lovely word "Hochmut" for that kind of behavior which describes a character trait between "arrogance", "pride" and "superiority" on one side and an absence of humility on the other side). To tell people that they are stupid is not a very brilliant piece of marketing imho.
Posted by: ben_ | July 29, 2008 1:36 PM
Re the appropriateness of the comparison made here - I think a "taste test" would typically let subjects know that there are items A and B in question, they just wouldn't know which one was which. There isn't an unknown factor. In this test, subjects are effectively lied to. Point proven, I guess, but it seems smiley to me and does raise for me similar ethical issues on a less egregious scale.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
July 29, 2008 1:57 PM
(Full disclosure, I work for MS - but not Windows group).
Comparing Mojave to Milgram is an inept comparison. The fact that you make that comparison belies your own prejudicial bias.
Speaking of bias - that's exactly what the Mojave thing studies.
Milgram, on the other hand, studied blind obedience to authority. Not bias.
Marshall - you are pretty much a poster child for the bias that Mojave is illuminating.
I really respect RWW and I do not make any claims about Vista -- I still use XP and clearly Vista had a lot of problems at launch (application compatibility, for example).
But this post is bordering on delusional and you and RWW just went down a notch in my book when it comes to objectivity and credibility.
Posted by: kayvaan | July 29, 2008 2:03 PM
In response to Ben (Comment 8).
I don't think Microsoft is telling people they are stupid. They are asking people to decide for themselves. That seems to be the central message of the whole campaign: Decide for yourself.
Posted by: Henry | July 29, 2008 2:31 PM
To quote Wikipedia:
"The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants."
The problem was not lying to the participants but bringing them in a extreme emotional situation that could potentially affect them for the rest of their life.
That's your misconception and the reason why your article is seriously misguided.
And btw.: the question whether Milgram's critics are even right, is still very open. Most of the participants of his tests were glad they did it.
Posted by: Valentin | July 29, 2008 2:32 PM
I'm an avid reader of RWW and I've got to say that I'm pretty shocked at how you've twisted the true story!
As others of pointed out, Microsoft have performed a valid marketing study... a type of study that *all* organisations their size undertake (quite frankly if they didn't do these types of studies they would be incredibly foolish). To compare this to the milgram experiment is unbelievable!
The point Microsoft are trying to make is that the perception of Vista is bad, but for no real good reason... the product itself is pretty good.
The funny thing is you've basically highlighted a core reason why Vista has a bad rep - you've bashed Microsoft for no good reason (i.e. every time you read about Vista in the tech press it's always negative.)
P.S. Note that I'm not a Microsoft fanboy - I use a Mac at work and have a iPhone... I'm just fed up with the negative stereotype.
Posted by: Paul_UK | July 29, 2008 2:39 PM
I was a little shocked by the tone of this article too. (I'm a loyal RSS subscriber).
I installed Vista64 on a new machine I built in April. I hummed and hawed about putting XP on the machine or getting Vista64. It came down to me being able to put a lot more RAM in Vista64. When I first built the machine I was quite worried about Vista's stability. But everything ran smoothly. And it still does.
I have had a few instances of instability - but tracked it down to a RAM related issue, rather than an OS issue.
Vista has had a ton of negative press, particularly the Mac vs PC ads (which are brilliant). I think this is a good way for MS to actually show users how Vista operates, because it is quite a capable OS.
Posted by: Jeremy Latham | July 29, 2008 2:42 PM
Marshall, I think your post is the precise issue with Vista ... you missed the whole point ..
To draw a parallel analogy, read the joke entitled Shaggy Dog .. I think if you replace the man with microsoft, it pretty much sums it up!
http://www.guy-sports.com/jokes/funny_religious_stories.htm#Shaggy_Dog_Story_
Posted by: Aziz | July 29, 2008 5:07 PM
Try an SAT prep course; it'll definitely help you develop better analogies.
Posted by: Sean | July 29, 2008 5:11 PM
WOAH...Mark....you really have gone way way way out of the line with this post. this is a post only a Duncan Riley would have done in his Techcrunch days. never expected it from yo.
as someone also familiar with the world of advertising. this experiment is more alike to the Pepsi Challenge as a way to measure preconceived notions and then break those notions apart.
i am shocked by your post..
Posted by: Avatar | July 29, 2008 5:16 PM
@16 .. lol ... someone just forwarded this to me .. thought I should push it in .. somewhere ..
Posted by: Aziz | July 29, 2008 5:32 PM
Aziz, I like that joke you linked to. In a sick way, of course.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
July 29, 2008 5:36 PM
@19 .. totally share your opinion abt the joke .. thought it was sick and amazingly mis-representative of what actually happened .. similarly Microsoft often gets mis-understood by most ..
just to clarify .. read some of the comments on this:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/06/gmails-mysterious-grey-box/
People think that this is a some type of a feature from gmail, where clearly it was a CSS bug ..
If the same thing would have happened to hotmail, people would have been "MS sucks .. they cant even code etc" ..
just trying to say that preconceived notions do play a huge role in many of the things we do, say or write ...
The joke doesnt highlight anything but the effect of preconceived notions ..
Just my $0.02
Posted by: Aziz | July 29, 2008 6:14 PM
As the other commenters have correctly stated (and as you've amended in the body of the post itself), the Microsoft experiment is significantly different from Milgram essentially any way you look at it.
There's nothing unsettling about a little controlled deception in an advertising/public opinion campaign. Psychology, experimental economics, and other researchers use these techniques on a daily basis, and the ends justify the perfectly acceptable scientific means. Microsoft doesn't seem to have crossed any lines using similar techniques in this marketing program-- rather, I think it's a brilliant use of modern-day social science techniques to show consumers that sometimes, they really are stupid.
Posted by: Andy DeSoto
|
July 29, 2008 6:25 PM
I'd say that Kirkpatrick has a serious bias against Microsoft and/or Vista (which may be justifiable) but to compare this to the Milgram experiment is way off base.
Regardless of what you may think about Microsoft, they do have a right to try and change perceptions of Vista and there's nothing wrong with their approach. It's an honest marketing strategy.
Posted by: Glenn | July 29, 2008 8:07 PM
Are you kidding me Marshall? You have really gone overboard. Microsoft could sue you for making libelous statements like these.
Consumer research and surveys are common and there is not a single thing in the videos that has anything to do - even remotely - with the Milgram experiments. That you would even suggest such a relation suggest you are clouded by your own hate of Microsoft, (or an Apple fanboy), or that you have no regard for the readers of RWW and our time, much less regard for those at RWW who pay you to write this drivel.
This is sensationalism at its best and one huge reason why blogs remain a "joke" among professional media. While they have their share of problems, too, no responsible journal or newspaper would have ever published a piece of uninformed nonsense like this and put their moniker on it. That RWW did so, is yet a huge mark against not only RWW and it's lack of judgment, but a mark against the tech blogosphere in general. I'm ashamed to even admit I'm a reader of RWW when I read this type of stuff.
This should be fully retracted, Marshall told to "move on", and maybe the damage can be mitigated somewhat. Else, this is close to drawing a line in the sand between tabloid populist entertainment and media ethics as any I've ever seen. Andrew Keen IS right.
Posted by: Lawrence Salberg | July 29, 2008 8:15 PM
What Stuart said
Posted by: Adam Loving
|
July 29, 2008 8:42 PM
oh and sorry for calling you "mark".. marshall. i was too shocked and noticed it too late. ;)
Posted by: Avatar | July 29, 2008 9:20 PM
Sorry - I can't help but keep at it... :)
Examples of other companies with condescending attitudes performing "Milgram" experiments:
Pizza Hut "Toscani Pasta". Such arrogance. Those customers must have felt so ashamed. I can't believe this. It's like torturing them!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wDxQsAVeds
Folger's Crystals - Famous Campaign that ran for YEARS - I can't believe we let Folgers make their customers look like fools for so long. So arrogant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HGKJHpQkfI
This is a run-of-the-mill advertising technique and I bet we could find fifty more examples over the last decade.
BTW - I can't help but notice that at least three commenters referred to being "shocked". Ha ha. Get it? Milgram? Shocked? ..... bwaaaahahahaha....
Posted by: kayvaan | July 29, 2008 11:27 PM
If I wanted ill-informed, biased, axe-grinding shitposts I'd read techcrunch. please stop.
Posted by: ertert | July 30, 2008 4:11 AM
I agree that Mojave is totally bogus. If you ask people who are not tech-savvy you will get people impressed by the superficial.
I would love to see the demo that Microsoft showed those users. I bet they didn't show them the useless Windows-Tab feature. And they probably had that annoying security alert box disabled.
if Microsoft was serious, they'd set themselves up in booth in malls and get anyone to take the test.
Posted by: donv69 | July 30, 2008 7:27 AM
Half-baked, offensive, havily-biased, inaccurate... not part of the RWW formula. Too much espresso this morning, Marshall?
Posted by: Gerry Heidenreich | July 30, 2008 9:48 AM
Wow... I have very little more to add that hasn't already been mentioned, but I think you deserve to be dragged over the proverbial coals for your bias against Microsoft/Vista. I've noticed a significant cant towards Apple and AGAINST Vista on RWW lately and its left quite a bad taste in my mouth for RWW's objectivity on its reporting on things like this. Its inexcusable.
Posted by: Rylan Bowers | July 30, 2008 10:02 AM
Er... heavily even. Heavily-biased. Too much espresso for me I guess.
Posted by: Gerry | July 30, 2008 10:02 AM
Nobody's perfect and I'm sorry to have offended so many people, but for the record - I've written all kinds of things favorable about Microsoft here in the last few months.
For example:
"Insiders working to advance the community of standards based openness tell us that they are getting a better feeling from Microsoft than many armchair critics would lead us to believe is warranted. Some analysts have even begun to wonder whether the old tropes about Microsoft as closed and rival Google as open are as applicable today as they used to be."
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
July 30, 2008 10:06 AM
Wow like others I think your comparison is in shockingly bad taste and shows you have little understanding of the implications of the Milgram experiment.. the two are not comparable in anyway and Milgram did the experiment to see how so many citizens participated in the Nazi death camps.. In addition, many people in the Milgram experiment were psychologically damaged and required in depth debriefing and counseling once they realized what they were capable of doing.. your comparison is irresponsible and ignorant in the truest sense of the word..
Posted by: Elizabeth | July 31, 2008 12:01 AM
The author of this post has a warped mind. Should they be writing under the RWW banner?
Posted by: Michael Rees | July 31, 2008 5:01 AM
I also disagree with the comparison of Mojave to Milgram however I have a different take on why Milgram received so much criticism.
IMO he proved exactly what he suspected about "us". That under the right circumstances, even without actual duress, most of us are capable of committing some pretty atrocious acts. As a rule we aren't fond of hearing bad things about our collective self, so "we" chose to vilify Milgram rather than accept that "we", at heart, are a pretty ruthless animal.
Posted by: Lake Hartwell | July 31, 2008 8:29 PM
Disclosure: I work for Microsoft
Disclosure: I think Marshall wants to work for The Register
The Register business model 101:
1. Write controversial / tenuous / one-eyed / ill-informed article
2. Click "publish"
3. Watch the eyeballs roll in
4. Sell ad space
5. Repeat
This is one of the poorer quality pieces I've seen on RWW (but I'm sure it helped drive ad revenue)
Posted by: Brett Roberts | August 13, 2008 3:03 AM