

Bing Apologizes For Japan Quake Tweet - babyface
http://searchengineland.com/bing-apologizes-for-japan-quake-tweet-67987

======
pohl
_We apologize the tweet was negatively perceived._

This is not even a real apology. This is a non-apology apology: a re-skinned
"I'm sorry you feel that way."

Douchebags.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology>

~~~
chaosmachine
Did not mean to upvote this. I don't think Microsoft has anything to apologize
for here (raising money and awareness via retweets?), so a non-apology seems
entirely appropriate. How many people complaining about this have donated even
$1?

I'll take all the karma burning you can dish out, I've got lots to spare, but
calling them "Douchebags" for donating 100k is over the top.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Raising awareness of an event of this magnitude? Really? Does anyone
_honestly_ think this is what Microsoft was doing?

I don't know if it's more ridiculous to think that anyone who uses Twitter or
Bing need to be made aware of the destruction in Japan, or that someone
honestly believes Microsoft thinks there are such people.

~~~
rbanffy
> Does anyone honestly think this is what Microsoft was doing?

Microsoft executives. They can honestly believe (to the extent of sustaining
that under oath) whatever they want.

------
extension
Know what? If you donate $100k to charity, you get to milk it however you
want. If we dig deep enough, we can find selfishness in everything we do.
Let's not and say we did.

EDIT: good god people, when a corporation donates money, it is _always_ out of
self-interest, one way or another. You can complain about their lack of
subtlety, or you can take the $100k and just be glad that capitalism sometimes
works that way.

~~~
rbanffy
> If you donate $100k to charity, you get to milk it however you want.

Let's make it clear - they didn't donate 100K to anyone. They offered to
donate _up to_ 100K _if enough people promoted their brand by retweeting their
message_.

------
bdean
I honestly don't see what the problem here is. I see this kind of thing happen
all the time, and no one only makes a big deal out of it. You can say the same
thing with Google's People Finder site...it was just created to show people
that Google "cared".

I think that sometimes people blow small things like this out of proportion
for no real reason.

PS. I will probably be down-voted for this. So be it.

------
latch
It's particularly striking when you compare it to what Google did:
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-stands-up-japan-
eart...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-stands-up-japan-earthquake-
crisis-response-site/2832)

------
chollida1
Can some one explain what Bing is actually apologizing for.

I've read this 4 times and all I can make out is that Microsoft is donating
money if people retweet a message that they are donating to Japan.

The link embedded in the tweet even links to their disaster relief page.

Everything about this seems like it's a good idea.

What's the controversy about?

~~~
baddox
They're apologizing that some people chose to be offended by the tweet. I
agree, that is perfectly reasonable. I too regret that people would choose to
be offended by a helpful, charitable action.

------
burgerbrain
I think the most offensive part is that Microsoft would limit itself to
donating a mere 100k.

If they don't want to donate, that's fine, nobody really expects them to. But
if they are, don't make it chump-change...

~~~
latch
I agree that the marketing thing is in horrible bad taste, and the non-apology
lame, but I've always disliked it when people have an opinion about where, or
how much money others should donate.

Trying to put aside the circus they've created around it, what's it to you if
they donate $0, or $100000, or $10000000? How much of a companies revenue
should a company donate for this? How much should an individual? Who should
decide? Who's business is it?

Given that you find the amount the most offensive thing, I take it you are
also offended by the billion of companies and individuals who have donated
nothing? How much have you donated? How much should I?

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
I don't think it's a big deal, just a hastily conceived idea that someone
should have reworked a bit before releasing into the wild. But yeah it is
offensive, when the dust hasn't settled and people are trapped in buildings,
to try and cash in on the "opportunity" with a message that said, in effect,
"Hey everyone look how we're generous we are and if you spread the message
about how generous Microsoft is (by retweeting this message) we'll donate an
entire dollar (up to the level of the salary of a low level flunky at our
company)."

I think if Bill was still running things, he'd have a) made a bigger donation
and b) wouldn't come across as trying to exploit the situation.

It's perfectly fine for a company to seek recognition for it's contribution to
the public good, but if it's not handled well, it can come across as a crass
and cynical exploitation. If they had just tweeted "Hey Microsoft is donating
$100,000 to Japan relief, here's how you can do the same http:\\\bit.ly\xxxx"
they may have gotten more retweets, and certainly a lot more respect.

------
steve19
The offensive tweet:

"How you can #SupportJapan – <http://binged.it/fEh7iT>. For every retweet,
@bing will give $1 to Japan quake victims, up to $100K."

Using a national tragedy for marketing purposes is just sickening. Really
really sickening.

EDIT: Given the amount of downvotes, I suppose I should clarify that this is
my perception, and this is probably perceived as many in this way. Marketing
is about perception. This was a fail for Bing.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I would agree, but this seriously doesn't look like an attempt at marketing.

It looks like a way to let people be involved in Microsoft's giving.

You're free to look at it in the worst possible light, but I'm having a hard
time believing that's what they intended.

~~~
Groxx
But then why did they @bing themselves, and why base it off retweets? Their
support is entirely based on other people's willingness to spread @bing by
Bing 100 thousand times. And what the heck is with that "apology"? Though
they're now flat-donating 100k, doing it to make up after-the-fact doesn't
change things, especially when it's so small from such a phenomenally wealthy
company.

Why is their support based on retweets? Why not state they're donating 100k
and request retweet for the binged.it link for purposes of finding ways to
help? Or better: make it two tweets, so they're not advertising their
generosity with their support link. They don't even mention what the binged
link is. Why didn't Microsoft bother to make it a more prominent link than one
that's 166 characters long and nested in their "community involvement"
section?

This is a very nice comparison between Google's response and Microsoft's.
"Resources related to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami." is right on the
Google front page. Microsoft's mention is nested a dozen layers deep, with a
banner of "Corporate Citizenship".

~~~
baddox
> _why base it off of retweets?_

Because the link in the tweet is to Microsoft's Disaster Response page, and
retweets will help spread this link. Google also uses their site to spread
information about the disaster.

~~~
Groxx
But Google's information contains no blatant _advertising_ of how much Google
is doing to provide aid. It just provides information about _how_ to help.

I don't think their tweet was all _that_ bad, but it is absolutely an
advertising attempt. Intentional or no, they're _clearly_ attempting to use
people to spread how much they're helping, and their name. And information.
But all that is _useful_ is the information (and it's not even mentioned aside
from an obfuscated link) - why is the rest there?

In any case, the twitter world is already ablaze with help links:
<http://twitter.com/#!/search/help%20japan> How many of the results there
mention how much the tweeter has donated, much less _corporate_ twitter
accounts?

~~~
baddox
I think the idea is that the $1 donation is used as an incentive for people to
retweet, which will draw more attention to the Microsoft Disaster Resources.

Besides, is your argument that corporations should never publicly disclose
charitable donations? If so, it's a pretty bold claim, and the vast majority
of corporations are guilty.

~~~
Groxx
Not at all. Just that there are more and less tasteful ways of doing so. This
isn't one of the more tasteful ones. It could have been an accident, but it is
what it is.

------
schlomie
Nice, they were sorry about our "perception" of what they were actually doing,
not about their intention to begin with.

