Microsoft Discovers That Bribing People To Use Its Search Engine Didn't Work
from the money-isn't-everything dept
We recently had a discussion about the role of money as an incentive and how it often doesn't work the way people think it should (i.e., money often provides negative incentive -- the opposite of what you would think). I'm actually working on another post about that topic that I'll hopefully finish later today, but here's a quick one demonstrating that point in action.Way back in 2005, Bill Gates suggested that in the end, Microsoft would be able to beat Google because it had a secret weapon: it could bribe users to use Microsoft instead of Google, by offering them a cut of the advertising revenue. It took a few years, but Microsoft finally turned on that "feature" on a limited basis in 2008, offering cashback for people who bought certain products after searching for them via Microsoft's search engine. Later that year, it expanded the program to regular search. What happened? Not that many people cared enough. Microsoft kept upping the ante, but most people didn't care. They were happy with their Google searches, and even if Microsoft was paying them to use its search engine, it wasn't enough. Well, except for people who figured out how to game the system. But that's not who Microsoft was targeting.
Microsoft has now admitted the program was a failure and is shutting it down. In a blog post about the decision, Microsoft admits that people just weren't that interested:
In lots of ways, this was a great feature -- we had over a thousand merchant partners delivering great offers to customers and seeing great ROI on their campaigns, and we were taking some of the advertising revenue and giving it back to customers. But after a couple of years of trying, we did not see the broad adoption that we had hoped for.Microsoft admission is quite open and honest, which is actually pretty cool. They don't sugarcoat it. They thought this was something people would like -- as the basic belief that monetary rewards drives activity would suggest -- but found that, in practice, it does not work at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Aplpe's new search will do the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aplpe's new search will do the same thing
1) You won't pay more for a product -- all product pricing has the cost of advertising build in. You pay for advertising wherever you buy.
2) Most of the advertising money from Apple mobile device goes to the app developers -- to support them and help create new and better apps.
3) That's one reason why Apple has in-app ads rather than "search"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They didn't create it because they wanted to make something people would like. They made it because they fear Google will one day make an OS that will compete with Windows. Not to mention other software that will directly compete with Microsoft. They did it for the same reason they have branched out into so many other areas of computing...to try and kill the potential competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nice to see, unlike the MSM who won't ever admit to a mistake and would try and secretly fix their mistakes (and do a poor job of covering it up after commenters have corrected them) and pretend like it got it right the first time. Honesty is important, sometimes mistakes are made. Instead of pretending they never happened, face up to them, people will be a lot more sympathetic towards you if you do.
Now of course there is a difference between being nefarious and making a mistake. But in the case of mistakes I think corporations would find that the public is very understanding if you face up to them and will not trust you if you try and "sugar cote" them or blame someone else or pretend it never happened and hide it somewhere in the back of the newspaper in small print or say it really quick in hopes that no one pays attention or intentionally do anything to make people less aware. MSM, pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember when, was it Bill gates? or some ISP? managed to offer everyone a $50 gift certificate to Best Buy for trying out, was it Dish TV or some Internet service or something? This was a long time ago. The thing is in the contract it said that you can cancel the contract at any time. The intent was clearly to have people subscribe for a year and get a $50 gift certificate for doing so. What people did was they signed up for the contract and immediately canceled and got their gift certificate. I think Bill gates lost millions of dollars before it got discontinued. I knew a bunch of people that did the same thing, it was all over my school that everyone was doing this and got their $50 gift certificate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTHO, most Bing Cashback discounts are in the single digit range. That just may not be worth it for most consumers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's always thought that the reason people eat shitty food is because it is cheaper, when I think laziness and not wanting to take time to cook is the more important factor, rather than a financial analysis of the options!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simple fact of the matter is...
if they want people to use their engine, first they need to fix it, or offer some feature that Google doesn't have. Then they can bribe new users into becoming loyal users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The simple fact of the matter is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The simple fact of the matter is...
Not in my experience...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The simple fact of the matter is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subtle messaging
I remember hearing about experiments where blood donors were paid. It actually resulted in a net loss of blood donations, because the money wasn't worth the lost time for many folks and donors lost the warm fuzzy feeling they got from donating something for free. I might be off on that as I can't find the study anywhere though -- would love to get some confirmation on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seem to be doing ok with a points system that lets you redeem for various things. But then again it's not a search engine trying to get people to use it, it's a specially-set-up search engine/merchandising rebate combo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keyboards, Search Engines, and the real reason why this failed
QWERTY vs DVORAK and Google vs Bing. Why no one will succeed against google in search.
If you look at the images of the QWERTY and Dvorak keyboards (images in links above) you will see substantial differences. If you went from a qwerty to a dvorak it would frustrate you and just not feel right. With use, the Dvorak takes months to learn.
Google has a certain pattern to its use. You type in a query it corrects your spelling. It doesnt give the correct answer you make a change and requery. You know where to type and where to look for results and how to redefine your query. This is a pattern that we have all become accustomed to.
Bing is laid out differently. Its responses are not what we are accustomed to. The queries often return things that would be place low on the list in google. Like the Dvorak keyboard it feels uncomfortable and unfamiliar.
That is why bings "get paid if you search and buy here" failed. People dont want to change. That is also why google will maintain a market strangle hold for the foreseable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keyboards, Search Engines, and the real reason why this failed
For many things, Bing IS uncomfortable to use. Like the way it crams the page in an image search into a box on the page and makes you click again to get to the actual page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Keyboards, Search Engines, and the real reason why this failed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The email I got from M$ ends with:
"we are currently working on an exciting new program which you will hear more about from us later this summer. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bing CB
So it does work! They just werent paid enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Cashback" is an incentive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bribing the wrong way
They're going about it the wrong way. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, it has exactly the opposite effect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]