Randall Stross’ New York Times story (April 1, 2007) finds the crack in Microsoft’s search strategy.

It is this.

Although giving money away in the form of “Microsoft Credits” to companies using MSN search exclusively is a great idea…and something out-of-the-box for a company of Microsoft’s size–it’s tantamount to almost being pregnant.

It won’t get the job done.

Stross points out why.

Companies don’t tap the keys on computers in search engines…people do.

And what does Bob care if his company gets some free Microsoft training credits?
What’s in it for Bob?

Nothing, as the NYT reporter points out so easily.

#1. Why did it take a Journalist to point out the obvious.

#2. What’s the search solution?

Let’s focus on #2.

The search solution lies in finding a superior algorithm, and a superior impetus.

Superior Algorithm - Can MSN Search Do It?

Here’s a test. Perform a search for my dad,`“Newspaper Consultant”.

Results in MSN’s Live Search and Google for this search are pretty much the same.

From a consumer’s perspective (remember THEY tap the keys) there’s no significant difference in search results.

For a consumer to switch, there needs to be a superior search algorithm…a noticeable difference seen by consumers.

MSN has none right now. To get there, though, it should be looking at some of the ontological semantic search engines likely be up by year’s end (full disclosure, I have an equity position in one of these engines).

Superior Impetus for MSN Search?

You and I are creatures of habit. Routine.

Gas Stations have performed research indicating we are so habitual, not only do we go to the same gas station, we go to the exact same pump at the same gas station. And if someone else is at ‘our’ pump…we get annoyed that ‘they’re at my pump!’

Now to change search habit…years of searching on one search engine–requires superior impetus.

NYT’s Stross urges MSN to pay users just like iWon.

Not a new idea Mr Stross…and no superior impetus.

But we are getting warmer here.

What would it take for a consumer to switch search engines?

Money…maybe. But your time is worth more than the chance of winning $10,000. The math is quite easy (1/30 million x $10K). Your time would be worth one cent after 30 searches. Paying people to search…not a good idea.

What else could cause a switch?

A chance at lunch with Warren Buffet? Yes.

A chance to play poker with the best poker player in the world Jamie Gold (who also happens to be my business partner in Buzznation Studios)? Yes.

A chance to be on the set with Marty Scorsese for a day? Yes

Where is this going?

Impetus and buzz.

Let’s say we created a new form of search distribution for Microsoft.

1. Microsoft licenses Live Search to Warren Buffet.
2. Warren puts up a site called BuffetSearch.com
3. Every Month Warren has a phone call with a randomly selected person who uses BuffetSearch at least 10 times per day…every quarter he has lunch with a randomly selected BuffetSearch user.

Warren gets a revenue share.
Microsoft does all the tech work and hosting.
Microsoft gets the recognition and buzz of “powered by Live Search.”
Warren signs the contract, cashes checks, goes to lunch.

Same formula for other celebrities and champions in their field.

ScorseseSearch.com JamieGoldSearch.com Etcetera. Etcetera.

Now what happens?

MSN Live Search gets buzz, and creates its missing business component: impetus to change.

P.S. to Satya Nadella…don’t forget the superior algorithm.

Mark Hughes is a professional speaker, consultant, and author of the book Buzzmarketing: Get People to Talk About Your Stuff (Penguin/Portfolio).

Technorati Profile