5 ms·
While I'm not necessarily arguing the accuracy of the story, it surely wouldn't hurt to put in a disclaimer stating that MSN and Bing both owned by the same com
by mrduncan 17y ago
While I'm not necessarily arguing the accuracy of the story, it surely wouldn't hurt to put in a disclaimer stating that MSN and Bing both owned by the same company.
- quizbiz 17y agoI don't care about the story as much as I am interested in trying to figure out what Microsoft did differently because Live was launched in a very similar way, minus the Hulu crap.
- michael_dorfman 17y agoIs that really true? I don't recall the product rolled out at the Live launch as having much of a distinguishing value proposition. Bing, on the other hand, is notably different than Google in several respects, so first-time visitors have a "take away" from the experience. If the purpose of the rollout ad blitz is to "induce trial", it's up to the quality of the match between the product and the product positioning to get people back for subsequent visits.
- carbon8 17y agoLive rebranded a bunch of MSN services and the marketing centered on personalization. Live Search was a rebranding of MSN search, with some new enhancements like the image search and it was heavily promoted.
- stonemetal 17y agoMarketing around release. When live launched it sounded like a PR move to bring their "online strategy" under one unified brand name. Basically no reason to look if you didn't like MSN. With the bing launch there was more of a "we are doing something different and actually trying to compete" feel to the whole thing. That actually made me curious enough to try it.
- xexers 17y agoThe difference is that Bing returns quality search results; Live search did not. People tried live search a few times then left. People try Bing and then come back for more.
- jcartano 17y agoThat is a fair point. I do think this report comes from briefing.com and when msn authors an article they mention that Microsoft owns msn.