It has been announced that on June 3rd Microsoft's new initiative at the search sector called "Bing" will be deployed globally. According to reports Microsoft is currently third within the search sector. Based on a Nielson rating, Microsoft commands approximately 9% of the search sector. However, Google and Yahoo control 64% and 16% respectively. Refer to: http://nielson.com/nielsonwire/online_mobile/top-10-search-providers-for-april-2009-us/
In 2008, Microsoft attempted a acquisition bid for Yahoo. Microsoft pursued a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. Hypothetically, if Yahoo had of accepted the bid, Microsoft would have deployed $45 billion and the combined entities would have 25% of the market compared to Google at 64%. Regardless of the failed bid, Microsoft is still required to pursue a strategy that will enable the company to compete with Google.
There are reports that Mr. Ballmer has resumed negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal. Refer to: http://blogs.com/techtraderdaily/2009/04/10/report-yahoo-microsoft-in-talks-on-search-ad-deal/
Why is Mr. Ballmer in talks with Yahoo and at the same time releasing a new search engine?
According to Mr. Ballmer "Bing, is the first step in delivering innovation in search to enable consumers to find information quickly and make informed decisions". Refer to: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=25414
The main dilemma with the above statement by Mr. Ballmer is the notion that it is the "first step in delivering innovation". Microsoft for several years has not been known for delivering innovation. It is a company that for several years has built a reputation on copying other innovative products but not to the same level of success. A not so popular "Zune" is a primary example of this hard reality facing Microsoft.
In an attempt to be optimistic, perhaps Microsoft has the capability to produce a truly innovative product. According to a report with CBS Marketwatch, the new search engine is designed to be a "decision making" product. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-good-news-and-bad-news-on-bing
However, as pointed out in the above article, there is no reason why Google and Yahoo cannot produce a similar product. Therefore, does Microsoft have the capability to produce a truly innovative product that Google can not emulate?
Based on consumers response to Microsoft products in the past it is difficult to remain optimistic in regards to how consumers will respond. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that Microsoft has a battered image. Therefore, with over 60% of the searches being conducted through Google, it is difficult to imagine consumers will migrate to a new Microsoft product.
In 2007, at an analyst meeting, Mr. Ballmer was confronted with a question concerning acquiring Yahoo. Mr. Ballmer indicated that Microsoft was "organic minded". Less than one year later Mr. Ballmer announces a bid for Yahoo.
In 2008, Mr. Ballmer pursues a 65% premium bid for Yahoo valued at $45 billion. This bid fails and Mr. Ballmer indicates that all negotiations with Yahoo are final.
In 2009, it is reported that Mr. Ballmer has entered negotiations with Yahoo in regards to a potential search deal.
In 2009, while in negotiations with Yahoo, Mr. Ballmer announces the release of a new search engine to compete with Google.
Perhaps the most important initiative for Microsoft would be to develop a platform that could enable the "decision making" ability of "Bing" be integrated into the SLT. It appears that the first step should be to develop a product that would enable Mr. Ballmer and the SLT to enter a query for how to compete with Google and then get the best answer. It seems evident that Mr. Ballmer is failing at finding information quickly and then making informed decisions.
It is without dispute that the most important search initiative for Microsoft is the "Search" for a New CEO.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Microsoft's Sun is Setting
Throughout corporate history companies have come and gone. Once mighty titans of history eventually become yesterday's news. Over the ages there has been Rockefeller and Standard Oil. There has been Andrew Carnegie and U.S Steel. Included in this list is Sears Roebuck, Hudson Bay Company, IBM and General Motors. The question that arises is Microsoft going to join this list?
When this campaign was initiated it was indicated that numerous letters were forwarded to Mr. Ballmer. The letters indicated that the company had to adapt to the changing competitive environment and examine its business model.
Through the course of the campaign it has been indicated that OS is losing share. It has been stated that the company is required to evolve and create strategies that will alleviate the depletion or decrease of revenue from OS.
The campaign has referenced that Apple, SUN Microsoystems and other companies are creating a threat to Microsoft's coveted cash cows. The campaign has stated that the company has constantly protected the cash cows but neglected to insulate itself from emerging trends.
The campaign has indicated that there is a trend towards SaaS, handheld and the Internet. Microsoft is trailing within each of these sectors. The company has a battered image in regards to its coveted cash cow OS division. Through the Vista fiasco, the Apple ads and Microsoft's poor response, Microsoft has a battered image. Refer to http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38350
This campaign has indicated for several months that Microsoft requires a "New Strategy". Over the past couple of months this strategy has evolved as current and former Microsoft employees provided additional insight and analysis.
Sadly, I feel myself compeled to say to Mr. Ballmer "Told You So".
There is a recent article with CBS Marketwatch. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-rally-may-find-solid-footing-with-windows-7
The article refers to Win 7 and its potential to save Microsoft. One interesting comment by the author is when he states " Microsoft has fumbled over and over again". There is no disputing this truth. Microsoft has fumbled on numerous occassions. Therefore, should one remain optimistic and believe that Win 7 and its release will prove different?
With the Crispin Porter generated ads Microsoft is failing to create a positive brand awareness and brand perception. Apple is considered cutting edge and subsequently this is refelected in the company stock price. Then there is Microsoft. Microsoft is required to create a excitement with the consumer. In a previous post this campaign referenced the Win 95 commercials. These commercials created excitement with the consumer. The recent campaign with Seinfeld, I am PC and Life without Walls are failing to create excitement with the consumer.
The next dilemma confronting Microsoft is its ability to deliver a desired product. Its track record for creating superior products has not been the company strength. It has rolled out products and left consumers frustrated and disappointed. Unless Win 7 offers compatibilty and superior user satisfaction all the advertising will not improve the company and enhance sales.
However, even if Microsoft is able to deliver a superior product with Win 7 it is still confronted with the original dilemma. It is still confronted with a business model that requires examination and modification.
There is a recent article with TechFlash. Refer to: http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Can_Microsofts_business_adapt_to_the_new_economy_45846007.html
In the above article the author Mr. Todd Bishop makes reference to the facts this campaign has been arguing for several months. The article states that OS is no longer the dominant revenue generator for Microsoft. The article also references the various threats to the company business model.
Microsoft is threatened within the OS sector. It has increased competition and a depletion in market share. It is threatened with online services and handheld services. Microsoft is required to adopt a "New Strategy".
This campaign has compiled and revised information from actual Microsoft employees to create a "New Strategy" for Microsoft. The strategy focus is on insulating the company from a continued depletion of OS revenue. It focuses on increasing the company image. It addresses R&D spending and improving effeciency. The campaign also provides solutions to insulate the depletion in OS and position the company in emerging trends.
The campaign has through its "New Strategy" indicated that Microsoft is required to initiate a deal with Yahoo. This will increase its share in the online sector. It is also required to pursue an acquisition of handheld company RIM (Research In Motion). This will enable the company to become competitive in the handheld sector. An alliance with Verizon to create a Smartphone will prove to late and a failure. RIM already has brand awareness and a solid base.
It is without dispute that Microsoft is confronted with various threats to its previous business model. However, companies have to adapt to the constant changing competitive environment. If a company fails to adapt it becomes like General Motors. It becomes outpaced and a dinasour.
If Microsoft and primarily Mr. Ballmer, The Board and the SLT fail to adapt, analysts and the history books might as well add Microsoft to the list of "Has Beens". Mr. Ballmer is required to adopt a strategy that will enable the company to remain pertinent and competitive. Perhaps it requires a strategy that was revised by actual Microsoft employees.
In a previous post, this campaign created the analogy that Microsoft was the Titanic headed towards the iceberg and Mr. Ballmer is neglecting to listen to warnings and keeps stating "full speed ahead". Unless, Mr. Ballmer starts listening to analysts, EMPLOYEES, and reports, the company is going to sink and take many people down with it.
Unfortunately, in this case history will likely repeat itself. We are all aware of the fact that only the rich were saved as the mighty Titanic sank taking the lower class citizens into the deep. Sadly, Mr. Ballmer, Mr. Gates (who is selling millions of shares per quarter to invest in private investment firm Cascade), the SLT and the Board will save themselves with billions worth of shares and watch numerous others sink into the depths with the once mighty Microsoft.
How long will the shares have to remain in the stagnant mode and fail to create value before the SLT changes course?
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
When this campaign was initiated it was indicated that numerous letters were forwarded to Mr. Ballmer. The letters indicated that the company had to adapt to the changing competitive environment and examine its business model.
Through the course of the campaign it has been indicated that OS is losing share. It has been stated that the company is required to evolve and create strategies that will alleviate the depletion or decrease of revenue from OS.
The campaign has referenced that Apple, SUN Microsoystems and other companies are creating a threat to Microsoft's coveted cash cows. The campaign has stated that the company has constantly protected the cash cows but neglected to insulate itself from emerging trends.
The campaign has indicated that there is a trend towards SaaS, handheld and the Internet. Microsoft is trailing within each of these sectors. The company has a battered image in regards to its coveted cash cow OS division. Through the Vista fiasco, the Apple ads and Microsoft's poor response, Microsoft has a battered image. Refer to http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38350
This campaign has indicated for several months that Microsoft requires a "New Strategy". Over the past couple of months this strategy has evolved as current and former Microsoft employees provided additional insight and analysis.
Sadly, I feel myself compeled to say to Mr. Ballmer "Told You So".
There is a recent article with CBS Marketwatch. Refer to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-rally-may-find-solid-footing-with-windows-7
The article refers to Win 7 and its potential to save Microsoft. One interesting comment by the author is when he states " Microsoft has fumbled over and over again". There is no disputing this truth. Microsoft has fumbled on numerous occassions. Therefore, should one remain optimistic and believe that Win 7 and its release will prove different?
With the Crispin Porter generated ads Microsoft is failing to create a positive brand awareness and brand perception. Apple is considered cutting edge and subsequently this is refelected in the company stock price. Then there is Microsoft. Microsoft is required to create a excitement with the consumer. In a previous post this campaign referenced the Win 95 commercials. These commercials created excitement with the consumer. The recent campaign with Seinfeld, I am PC and Life without Walls are failing to create excitement with the consumer.
The next dilemma confronting Microsoft is its ability to deliver a desired product. Its track record for creating superior products has not been the company strength. It has rolled out products and left consumers frustrated and disappointed. Unless Win 7 offers compatibilty and superior user satisfaction all the advertising will not improve the company and enhance sales.
However, even if Microsoft is able to deliver a superior product with Win 7 it is still confronted with the original dilemma. It is still confronted with a business model that requires examination and modification.
There is a recent article with TechFlash. Refer to: http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Can_Microsofts_business_adapt_to_the_new_economy_45846007.html
In the above article the author Mr. Todd Bishop makes reference to the facts this campaign has been arguing for several months. The article states that OS is no longer the dominant revenue generator for Microsoft. The article also references the various threats to the company business model.
Microsoft is threatened within the OS sector. It has increased competition and a depletion in market share. It is threatened with online services and handheld services. Microsoft is required to adopt a "New Strategy".
This campaign has compiled and revised information from actual Microsoft employees to create a "New Strategy" for Microsoft. The strategy focus is on insulating the company from a continued depletion of OS revenue. It focuses on increasing the company image. It addresses R&D spending and improving effeciency. The campaign also provides solutions to insulate the depletion in OS and position the company in emerging trends.
The campaign has through its "New Strategy" indicated that Microsoft is required to initiate a deal with Yahoo. This will increase its share in the online sector. It is also required to pursue an acquisition of handheld company RIM (Research In Motion). This will enable the company to become competitive in the handheld sector. An alliance with Verizon to create a Smartphone will prove to late and a failure. RIM already has brand awareness and a solid base.
It is without dispute that Microsoft is confronted with various threats to its previous business model. However, companies have to adapt to the constant changing competitive environment. If a company fails to adapt it becomes like General Motors. It becomes outpaced and a dinasour.
If Microsoft and primarily Mr. Ballmer, The Board and the SLT fail to adapt, analysts and the history books might as well add Microsoft to the list of "Has Beens". Mr. Ballmer is required to adopt a strategy that will enable the company to remain pertinent and competitive. Perhaps it requires a strategy that was revised by actual Microsoft employees.
In a previous post, this campaign created the analogy that Microsoft was the Titanic headed towards the iceberg and Mr. Ballmer is neglecting to listen to warnings and keeps stating "full speed ahead". Unless, Mr. Ballmer starts listening to analysts, EMPLOYEES, and reports, the company is going to sink and take many people down with it.
Unfortunately, in this case history will likely repeat itself. We are all aware of the fact that only the rich were saved as the mighty Titanic sank taking the lower class citizens into the deep. Sadly, Mr. Ballmer, Mr. Gates (who is selling millions of shares per quarter to invest in private investment firm Cascade), the SLT and the Board will save themselves with billions worth of shares and watch numerous others sink into the depths with the once mighty Microsoft.
How long will the shares have to remain in the stagnant mode and fail to create value before the SLT changes course?
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Will Ballmer End His "Search"
There are certain circumstances when a person will try to remain optimistic. For example, you are leaving on vacation and the weather report states it will rain. Naturally, it is normal to attempt to remain optimistic and believe that the forecast is not correct and it will prove to be good weather.
In the past few weeks there have been various reports and announcements concerning Microsoft and its search initiative. With the various reports it is difficult to remain optimistic in regards to Microsoft.
In April it was announced that Mr. Ballmer was resuming talks with Yahoo. It was reported that Mr. Ballmer was in discussion with Ms. Bartz in regards to a possible search and advertising deal. Refer to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123937960877408815.html
The above report initially created some optimism. There was a glimmer of light as the campaign hoped that Microsoft was pursuing what was suggested in the "New Strategy". There was optimism that talks concerning a search deal would lead to Microsoft gaining additional market share in this sector.
This campaign has on numerous ocassion expressed disgust in regards to the Yahoo bid. Mr. Ballmer pursued a 65% premium bid for Yahoo. This bid was valued at approximately $45 billion.
This failed bid was Mr. Ballmer's attempt to increase Microsoft's market share within this sector. This attempt by Mr. Ballmer should come as no surprise. A recent report indicates that Microsoft still trails both Google and Yahoo in the search sector. Refer to : http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090518/google-has-search-market-share-microsoft-not-so-much/?reflink=ATD_mktw_quotes
However, Mr. Ballmer's desire to increase market share and compete with Google creates concern. This leads to the next report.
Microsoft recently announced it was issuing bonds. Refer to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124205546206507039.html
What is perplexing is the notion that a company that has never had debt and has $25 billion in cash is seeking to issue debt. Is Mr. Ballmer issuing debt to pursue a major acquisition?
Is Mr. Ballmer planning on pursuing Yahoo again?
Microsoft recently announced it will be releasing a New Search Engine called "Kumo". Refer to: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090519/microsoft-to-debut-new-search-at-d-all-things-digital/
The above article references that Microsoft is attempting to compete with Google that increased its market share. According to the report Microsoft has lost market share from a year ago.
What is causing the greatest difficulty to remain optimistic?
Microsoft several years ago eliminated Netscape from the landscape. Netscape was once the leading search engine. Microsoft through an initiative dominated the sector. However, it then gets eliminated by Yahoo then annihilated by Google.
Mr. Ballmer realising that Google is dominating this important sector attempts to acquire Yahoo. Again, a 65% premium bid valued at $45 billion.
Now there are reports that Mr. Ballmer is resuming talks with Ms Bartz concerning a deal with Yahoo. There is reports that Microsoft despite having $25 billion in cash issued debt for a potential acquisition. There is a report that Microsoft is realising 'Kumo" in an attempt to compete with Google.
Here is the reason its hard to be optimistic. Based on the numerous reports it appears that Mr. Ballmer is "searching" for anything that will compete with Google. This campaign has mentioned that in 2007 at an analyst meeting when confronted with potentially acquiring Yahoo that Mr. Ballmer stated "Microsoft is organic minded". However, less then one year later Mr. Ballmer attempted to acquire Yahoo. This change in direction and almost sporadic strategy displays that Mr. Ballmer has no "Real" vision in regards to competing with Google.
Resuming talks with Yahoo, issuing debt for a possible acquisition, and releasing a "New Search Engine" displays characterisitics that Mr. Ballmer is simply doing everything but eventually it will prove to be nothing.
Perhaps eventually a company will challenge Google and maybe even remove Google from the Throne as undisputed King of Search. However, based on Mr. Ballmer's past record of poor decisions and the conflicting reports and direction it appears evident it will not be Microsoft that takes the Throne.
It appears that the forecast for Microsoft will continue to prove cloudy.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
In the past few weeks there have been various reports and announcements concerning Microsoft and its search initiative. With the various reports it is difficult to remain optimistic in regards to Microsoft.
In April it was announced that Mr. Ballmer was resuming talks with Yahoo. It was reported that Mr. Ballmer was in discussion with Ms. Bartz in regards to a possible search and advertising deal. Refer to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123937960877408815.html
The above report initially created some optimism. There was a glimmer of light as the campaign hoped that Microsoft was pursuing what was suggested in the "New Strategy". There was optimism that talks concerning a search deal would lead to Microsoft gaining additional market share in this sector.
This campaign has on numerous ocassion expressed disgust in regards to the Yahoo bid. Mr. Ballmer pursued a 65% premium bid for Yahoo. This bid was valued at approximately $45 billion.
This failed bid was Mr. Ballmer's attempt to increase Microsoft's market share within this sector. This attempt by Mr. Ballmer should come as no surprise. A recent report indicates that Microsoft still trails both Google and Yahoo in the search sector. Refer to : http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090518/google-has-search-market-share-microsoft-not-so-much/?reflink=ATD_mktw_quotes
However, Mr. Ballmer's desire to increase market share and compete with Google creates concern. This leads to the next report.
Microsoft recently announced it was issuing bonds. Refer to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124205546206507039.html
What is perplexing is the notion that a company that has never had debt and has $25 billion in cash is seeking to issue debt. Is Mr. Ballmer issuing debt to pursue a major acquisition?
Is Mr. Ballmer planning on pursuing Yahoo again?
Microsoft recently announced it will be releasing a New Search Engine called "Kumo". Refer to: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090519/microsoft-to-debut-new-search-at-d-all-things-digital/
The above article references that Microsoft is attempting to compete with Google that increased its market share. According to the report Microsoft has lost market share from a year ago.
What is causing the greatest difficulty to remain optimistic?
Microsoft several years ago eliminated Netscape from the landscape. Netscape was once the leading search engine. Microsoft through an initiative dominated the sector. However, it then gets eliminated by Yahoo then annihilated by Google.
Mr. Ballmer realising that Google is dominating this important sector attempts to acquire Yahoo. Again, a 65% premium bid valued at $45 billion.
Now there are reports that Mr. Ballmer is resuming talks with Ms Bartz concerning a deal with Yahoo. There is reports that Microsoft despite having $25 billion in cash issued debt for a potential acquisition. There is a report that Microsoft is realising 'Kumo" in an attempt to compete with Google.
Here is the reason its hard to be optimistic. Based on the numerous reports it appears that Mr. Ballmer is "searching" for anything that will compete with Google. This campaign has mentioned that in 2007 at an analyst meeting when confronted with potentially acquiring Yahoo that Mr. Ballmer stated "Microsoft is organic minded". However, less then one year later Mr. Ballmer attempted to acquire Yahoo. This change in direction and almost sporadic strategy displays that Mr. Ballmer has no "Real" vision in regards to competing with Google.
Resuming talks with Yahoo, issuing debt for a possible acquisition, and releasing a "New Search Engine" displays characterisitics that Mr. Ballmer is simply doing everything but eventually it will prove to be nothing.
Perhaps eventually a company will challenge Google and maybe even remove Google from the Throne as undisputed King of Search. However, based on Mr. Ballmer's past record of poor decisions and the conflicting reports and direction it appears evident it will not be Microsoft that takes the Throne.
It appears that the forecast for Microsoft will continue to prove cloudy.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Monday, May 11, 2009
Microsoft Issues Debt
Mr. Ballmer and the SLT have pursued various strategies that have left investors, and analysts confused and perplexed. Microsoft recently announced its first issue of debt. Refer to
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Microsoft-files-first-ever-bond/story.aspx?guid=%7B74CF8D7F%2D3683%2D40AF%2DB3F7%2DBF056078F740%7D
This leads to one very simple question. Why?
According to Microsoft the company said "it plans to use the proceeds from the sale of the notes for "general corporate purposes," which may include working capital, share buybacks and acquisitions".
Microsoft has according to the report $25 billion in cash and short-term investments. This is a tremendous amount of capital. The company also generates over $60 billion in revenue and approximately $25 billion in Operating Income.
Is the company really required to issue debt to fund share buybacks and acquisitions?
It has been indicated on numerous occassions that this campaign is oppossed to share buybacks. The company previously deployed $40 billion towards buybacks in an attempt to elevate the share price. It is historically evident that this initiative failed to elevate the share price and create value. Therefore, issuing debt to buyback shares will prove to be a poor decision.
A strategy to buyback shares demonstrates that the SLT has no real strategy on how to utilize capital to propel growth. It is more prudent to deploy capital towards acquisition growth. But, the company still has $25 billion in cash. Therefore, why issue debt?
This campaign has explained its contention with previous Microsoft acquisitions. It seems evident that the company has deployed billions on various acquisitions that fail to increase market share and revenue. Its Online Service Division is a prime example of wasted capital on acquisitions. Regardless, to increase market share in various sectors the company is required to pursue a drastic growth strategy.
Last year Microsoft attempted to acquire Yahoo for $45 billion. If the company has $25 billion in cash and is seeking to raise $3.7 billion, is Mr. Ballmer planning a major acquisition?
This campaign has indicated that its "New Strategy" for Microsoft incorporates the acquisition of RIM. The Microsoft employee that provided the analysis indicated that this would enable Microsoft to have presence with Danger and RIM. This would capture significant share in the youth segment and business segment of the handheld sector.
This campaign would not be oppossed to Microsoft issuing debt to pursue a game changing strategy. Issuing debt to not fully deplete the cash reserve and acquire RIM would prove a viable strategy for the company. It would postion Microsoft in a competitive position in the handheld sector.
However, what is perplexing is the intention of Mr. Ballmer, The Board and the SLT. Now that the talks have started with Ms. Bartz is Mr. Ballmer intending to pursue another attempt at Yahoo?
Will the issue of the debt prove beneficial for the long-term stability and growth of the company?
Will it be used to increase market share?
Will the issue of debt and its utilization enhance the stagnant share price?
Will it prove to be yet another nail in the coffin?
Let's hope that Mr. Ballmer and The Board will finally make some viable decisions that will benfit the direction of the company.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Microsoft-files-first-ever-bond/story.aspx?guid=%7B74CF8D7F%2D3683%2D40AF%2DB3F7%2DBF056078F740%7D
This leads to one very simple question. Why?
According to Microsoft the company said "it plans to use the proceeds from the sale of the notes for "general corporate purposes," which may include working capital, share buybacks and acquisitions".
Microsoft has according to the report $25 billion in cash and short-term investments. This is a tremendous amount of capital. The company also generates over $60 billion in revenue and approximately $25 billion in Operating Income.
Is the company really required to issue debt to fund share buybacks and acquisitions?
It has been indicated on numerous occassions that this campaign is oppossed to share buybacks. The company previously deployed $40 billion towards buybacks in an attempt to elevate the share price. It is historically evident that this initiative failed to elevate the share price and create value. Therefore, issuing debt to buyback shares will prove to be a poor decision.
A strategy to buyback shares demonstrates that the SLT has no real strategy on how to utilize capital to propel growth. It is more prudent to deploy capital towards acquisition growth. But, the company still has $25 billion in cash. Therefore, why issue debt?
This campaign has explained its contention with previous Microsoft acquisitions. It seems evident that the company has deployed billions on various acquisitions that fail to increase market share and revenue. Its Online Service Division is a prime example of wasted capital on acquisitions. Regardless, to increase market share in various sectors the company is required to pursue a drastic growth strategy.
Last year Microsoft attempted to acquire Yahoo for $45 billion. If the company has $25 billion in cash and is seeking to raise $3.7 billion, is Mr. Ballmer planning a major acquisition?
This campaign has indicated that its "New Strategy" for Microsoft incorporates the acquisition of RIM. The Microsoft employee that provided the analysis indicated that this would enable Microsoft to have presence with Danger and RIM. This would capture significant share in the youth segment and business segment of the handheld sector.
This campaign would not be oppossed to Microsoft issuing debt to pursue a game changing strategy. Issuing debt to not fully deplete the cash reserve and acquire RIM would prove a viable strategy for the company. It would postion Microsoft in a competitive position in the handheld sector.
However, what is perplexing is the intention of Mr. Ballmer, The Board and the SLT. Now that the talks have started with Ms. Bartz is Mr. Ballmer intending to pursue another attempt at Yahoo?
Will the issue of the debt prove beneficial for the long-term stability and growth of the company?
Will it be used to increase market share?
Will the issue of debt and its utilization enhance the stagnant share price?
Will it prove to be yet another nail in the coffin?
Let's hope that Mr. Ballmer and The Board will finally make some viable decisions that will benfit the direction of the company.
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A "Leading Company" Requires True Leaders
Since launching this campaign towards Microsoft numerous topics have been examined within this blog. Typically, a news topic concerning Microsoft will foster a post or comment. However, this post was created from different circumstances.
In the past year I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to attend Leadership Summits. Last year, I attended a Leadership Summit which included Colin Powell as a guest speaker.
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend Maximum Impact. Refer to http://www.giantimpact.com/aftertheevent
This event included numerous guest speakers. It included a founder of the fastest growing advertising agency in the United States. It included the President of Disney Parks. It included former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While sitting listening to the various leaders it caused simple reflection and analysis into required practices for a leader. It also caused reflection concerning Microsoft.
One of the guest speakers presented a topic called Play at Work. Also refer to http://www.creativityatwork.com/articlesContent/playwork.htm
The guest speaker had the opportunity to meet with an executive at Google. The executive discussed how Google has created a culture of "Purposeful Play". It was discussed how fostering this environment within the workplace can improve quality of work, retention and attract new talent.
In contrast is Microsoft. Although the article is dated 2005 it is still pertinent. Refer to: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2005/10/middle-managers-bureaucracy-and-no.html
It is still pertinent primarly because a reader can still view the same type of comments on the Mini blog. After four years since this article, employees are still commenting on layers of middle management and bureaucracy. Refer to http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
Perhaps, this is why employees indicated within the "New Strategy" that "middle management" needs to be streamlined.
During the Maximum Impact seminars or speeches there were numerous other important comments. Al Weiss the President of Disney Parks referred to "Servant Leadership". The company Chi-Fil-A ,the sponsor of the event, commented on pursuing "customer satisfaction".
Continental Airlines discussed the importance of teamwork, dignity and respect and how they are held in the same regard as profitability. The company also recognised that it had to reward and celebrate success with everyone. It was stated that no group takes credit for success or blame for failure. Everyone is considered a team and integral to the overall success of the company.
All these comments caused analysis and comparison of Microsoft. Microsoft is far removed from "Servant Leadership". The mentality of Microsoft is focus on yourself and your career, your success and when you advance up the levels "help yourself". This is a stark contrast from "Servant Leadership". What about empowering your employees?
What about advancing up the ranks and creating an environment where your subordinates can excel and become their best at the job?
This mentality subsequently creates an environment where employees are empowered to succeed at their role.
There is the issue of making customer satisfaction "top priority". Ford Motor Company recognised this importance when they launched "Ford. Quality is Job One." Then there is Microsoft. Enough said.
Microsoft has various divisions and teams. This campaign obtained a letter from a former employee that indicated a monetary reward for accomplishing a goal. Comments on Mini demonstrate that Microsoft rewards teams or groups for success. This creates dissention and animosity within the company. Microsoft is required to adopt a culture where the entire company celebrates success. This will create a team environment as oppossed to isulating a group for failure or success.
Mr. Ballmer's comment regarding "Developers, Developers" creates division. Everyone, celebrates the success and everyone is considered important. This is the corporate culture that fosters productivity and success.
There is also the issue of ensuring that dignity, respect and teamwork are valued with the same regard as profitability. It appears evident that at Microsoft there is no real dignity and respect and the only focus is "Profits". The primary example of this mentality is the recent layoffs. A company with $21 billion in cash announces layoffs. The only reason was profits and appease Wall Street. Secondly, announcing layoffs then forcing people to wait. This totally lacks respect towards employees.
There is a very simple lesson that can be drawn from the various leadership speeches. The better you treat employees, the more efficient your company will be. The more effecient your company becomes, it equates to innovation, increased productivity, customer satisfaction and more profitable.
This left one final question. The Maximum Impact Conference was viewed by 50,000 leaders in numerous countries. Was anybody from the Microsoft SLT in attendance?
If you want to be a "Leading Company" you are required to have "True Leaders".
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
In the past year I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to attend Leadership Summits. Last year, I attended a Leadership Summit which included Colin Powell as a guest speaker.
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend Maximum Impact. Refer to http://www.giantimpact.com/aftertheevent
This event included numerous guest speakers. It included a founder of the fastest growing advertising agency in the United States. It included the President of Disney Parks. It included former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While sitting listening to the various leaders it caused simple reflection and analysis into required practices for a leader. It also caused reflection concerning Microsoft.
One of the guest speakers presented a topic called Play at Work. Also refer to http://www.creativityatwork.com/articlesContent/playwork.htm
The guest speaker had the opportunity to meet with an executive at Google. The executive discussed how Google has created a culture of "Purposeful Play". It was discussed how fostering this environment within the workplace can improve quality of work, retention and attract new talent.
In contrast is Microsoft. Although the article is dated 2005 it is still pertinent. Refer to: http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2005/10/middle-managers-bureaucracy-and-no.html
It is still pertinent primarly because a reader can still view the same type of comments on the Mini blog. After four years since this article, employees are still commenting on layers of middle management and bureaucracy. Refer to http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
Perhaps, this is why employees indicated within the "New Strategy" that "middle management" needs to be streamlined.
During the Maximum Impact seminars or speeches there were numerous other important comments. Al Weiss the President of Disney Parks referred to "Servant Leadership". The company Chi-Fil-A ,the sponsor of the event, commented on pursuing "customer satisfaction".
Continental Airlines discussed the importance of teamwork, dignity and respect and how they are held in the same regard as profitability. The company also recognised that it had to reward and celebrate success with everyone. It was stated that no group takes credit for success or blame for failure. Everyone is considered a team and integral to the overall success of the company.
All these comments caused analysis and comparison of Microsoft. Microsoft is far removed from "Servant Leadership". The mentality of Microsoft is focus on yourself and your career, your success and when you advance up the levels "help yourself". This is a stark contrast from "Servant Leadership". What about empowering your employees?
What about advancing up the ranks and creating an environment where your subordinates can excel and become their best at the job?
This mentality subsequently creates an environment where employees are empowered to succeed at their role.
There is the issue of making customer satisfaction "top priority". Ford Motor Company recognised this importance when they launched "Ford. Quality is Job One." Then there is Microsoft. Enough said.
Microsoft has various divisions and teams. This campaign obtained a letter from a former employee that indicated a monetary reward for accomplishing a goal. Comments on Mini demonstrate that Microsoft rewards teams or groups for success. This creates dissention and animosity within the company. Microsoft is required to adopt a culture where the entire company celebrates success. This will create a team environment as oppossed to isulating a group for failure or success.
Mr. Ballmer's comment regarding "Developers, Developers" creates division. Everyone, celebrates the success and everyone is considered important. This is the corporate culture that fosters productivity and success.
There is also the issue of ensuring that dignity, respect and teamwork are valued with the same regard as profitability. It appears evident that at Microsoft there is no real dignity and respect and the only focus is "Profits". The primary example of this mentality is the recent layoffs. A company with $21 billion in cash announces layoffs. The only reason was profits and appease Wall Street. Secondly, announcing layoffs then forcing people to wait. This totally lacks respect towards employees.
There is a very simple lesson that can be drawn from the various leadership speeches. The better you treat employees, the more efficient your company will be. The more effecient your company becomes, it equates to innovation, increased productivity, customer satisfaction and more profitable.
This left one final question. The Maximum Impact Conference was viewed by 50,000 leaders in numerous countries. Was anybody from the Microsoft SLT in attendance?
If you want to be a "Leading Company" you are required to have "True Leaders".
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Ballmer is "Really Bad"
There are numerous reports and comments concerning the credibility of Mr. Ballmer as CEO of Microsoft. In our last post we referenced a poll by Glassdoor and CNBC. Refer to http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/2009/01/cnbc-reports-on-ceo-ratings-the-future-of-glassdoor-and-whos-getting-a-bonus/
A simple review of the comments at Mini Microsoft would also quickly demonstrate the perception towards Mr. Ballmer as CEO. Refer to http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
Recently, Mr. Ballmer conducted a speech for students at Stanford University. A article with CBS Marketwatch called "Microsoft's Ballmer says economy is really bad" outlines this speech. Refer to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsofts-ballmer-says-economy-really/story.aspx?guid=%7BB93A5CA6%2D5F70%2D4D64%2D9459%2D132B37F41710%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN
The first problem with this situation is the university selection for a speaker. The speech is titled "Innovation & Entrepreneurship: Opportunities in Difficult Times" and they select Mr. Ballmer. Could the university not find a "Real Entrepeneur" to conduct the speech?
They select Mr. Ballmer. The only reason he is the CEO of the largest tech company is his friendship with the entrepeneur that founded Microsoft. Come on Stanford, if your providing a presentation on a topic perhaps try to get an expert on the topic. If Bill G is not available alteast get someone that has expereince in starting a company. Mr. Ballmer is better suited to conduct a speech concerning "How to Destroy the Start-Up Your Friend Has Founded".
It is ironic that Mr. Ballmer is presenting a speech on "Innovation and Opportunities in Difficult Times". Since Mr. Ballmer has failed to inject Microsoft with innovation it has lead the company to "difficult times".
In the CBS article is the reference to Mr. Ballmer indicating that the economy presents the opportunity to make better products. What products is he referring to?
Mr. Ballmer certainly cannot be referring to Microsoft products. Make the Zune better? Make MSN better? Make Longhorn...Vista (Win 7...8..9) better. Make a Smart Phone with Verizon better?
Mr. Ballmer then has the audacity to state " Microsoft's lower profile in the Internet search market gave it certain advantages. "The No. 1 player is a lot bigger than us in search," he said. "We're more like a start-up than a big guy in search."
Lets get serious. This is a statement from a CEO that has been obsessed with competing with Google. This is a CEO that has pursued billions of dollars worth of acquisitions in this sector. He is the same CEO that pursued a 65% premium bid for a floundering Yahoo to compete with Google. Then Mr. Ballmer has the nerve to state it provides "certain advantages".
Reality check Mr. Ballmer. Microsoft fails to resemble a start-up. Microsoft was engaged in Online Services long before the Start-Up Google. The only area that your statement is correct is this once obscure Start-Up called Google has become Number One.
Mr. Ballmer states " that gave the company the chance to try things that a market leader, like Google Inc. , might not be able to do". Please provide clarity Mr. Ballmer. It gave Microsoft opportunity to try what?
Blow through billions of dollars on acquisitions and R&D and fail to elevate the market share?
Google as a leader has introduced new services. It has expanded markets. It has gained more market share. It has increased revenue and earnings. Perhaps this is why the company is Number One.
If Microsoft Online Services was a start-up it would have gone bankrupt years ago. Its only survival is the cash generated by the OS division initially created by the Entrepeneur Mr. Gates.
If Microsoft Online was truly a start-up it should have experienced the fate of most start-ups and been acquired by a larger competitor, such as Google.
Mr. Ballmer then states that Microsoft will invest $9 billion on R&D. So, this $9 billion investment will be spent on improving existing products and making them better?
It will be spent to follow the "New Strategy" that was created by this campaign and revised by Microsoft employees?
Mr. Ballmer will spend capital to make Win 7 better. Mr. Ballmer will deploy capital to make Online Services better. But, lets not forget that Online is like a start-up with advantages and therefore can pursue things that Google cannot. Such as a deal with Yahoo to become more competitive in the Online sector.
It seems evident that its not the economy that is bad. Despite the poor economy, competitors have posted positive earnings. Mr. Ballmer failed to recognise the importance of Online and is busy trying to rectify this dilemma. However, Mr. Ballmer tries to down play the magnitude of this blunder and state that its better for the company.
Mr. Ballmer failed to recognise the importance of handheld and netbooks. Subsequently, this had a dramatic effect on the company revenue and earnings. The company is equally dependent on OS for revenue and subsequently the company experienced a double digit decline. Refer to http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/technology/microsoft_earnings/index.htm?postversion=2009042316
We will state "Mr. Ballmer we told you so".
When this campaign was launched the main argument for the necessity for a "New Strategy" was to insulate the company from a decline in OS revenue. It was stated there is a trend in SaaS, netbooks, and mobile. It was stated that OS was losing share.
It can be concluded that the only thing that is truly "really bad" is Mr. Ballmer as CEO of Microsoft. We have two suggestions for Mr. Ballmer. First suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. Leave Microsoft and become a public speaker. You can provide insight into how to destroy employee morale through layoffs and poor management. How to miss opportunities and blame other external factors. How to destory billions in shareholder value.
Second suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. Just leave Microsoft. Leave before you lead Microsoft from being "bad" to "really bad".
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
A simple review of the comments at Mini Microsoft would also quickly demonstrate the perception towards Mr. Ballmer as CEO. Refer to http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
Recently, Mr. Ballmer conducted a speech for students at Stanford University. A article with CBS Marketwatch called "Microsoft's Ballmer says economy is really bad" outlines this speech. Refer to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsofts-ballmer-says-economy-really/story.aspx?guid=%7BB93A5CA6%2D5F70%2D4D64%2D9459%2D132B37F41710%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN
The first problem with this situation is the university selection for a speaker. The speech is titled "Innovation & Entrepreneurship: Opportunities in Difficult Times" and they select Mr. Ballmer. Could the university not find a "Real Entrepeneur" to conduct the speech?
They select Mr. Ballmer. The only reason he is the CEO of the largest tech company is his friendship with the entrepeneur that founded Microsoft. Come on Stanford, if your providing a presentation on a topic perhaps try to get an expert on the topic. If Bill G is not available alteast get someone that has expereince in starting a company. Mr. Ballmer is better suited to conduct a speech concerning "How to Destroy the Start-Up Your Friend Has Founded".
It is ironic that Mr. Ballmer is presenting a speech on "Innovation and Opportunities in Difficult Times". Since Mr. Ballmer has failed to inject Microsoft with innovation it has lead the company to "difficult times".
In the CBS article is the reference to Mr. Ballmer indicating that the economy presents the opportunity to make better products. What products is he referring to?
Mr. Ballmer certainly cannot be referring to Microsoft products. Make the Zune better? Make MSN better? Make Longhorn...Vista (Win 7...8..9) better. Make a Smart Phone with Verizon better?
Mr. Ballmer then has the audacity to state " Microsoft's lower profile in the Internet search market gave it certain advantages. "The No. 1 player is a lot bigger than us in search," he said. "We're more like a start-up than a big guy in search."
Lets get serious. This is a statement from a CEO that has been obsessed with competing with Google. This is a CEO that has pursued billions of dollars worth of acquisitions in this sector. He is the same CEO that pursued a 65% premium bid for a floundering Yahoo to compete with Google. Then Mr. Ballmer has the nerve to state it provides "certain advantages".
Reality check Mr. Ballmer. Microsoft fails to resemble a start-up. Microsoft was engaged in Online Services long before the Start-Up Google. The only area that your statement is correct is this once obscure Start-Up called Google has become Number One.
Mr. Ballmer states " that gave the company the chance to try things that a market leader, like Google Inc. , might not be able to do". Please provide clarity Mr. Ballmer. It gave Microsoft opportunity to try what?
Blow through billions of dollars on acquisitions and R&D and fail to elevate the market share?
Google as a leader has introduced new services. It has expanded markets. It has gained more market share. It has increased revenue and earnings. Perhaps this is why the company is Number One.
If Microsoft Online Services was a start-up it would have gone bankrupt years ago. Its only survival is the cash generated by the OS division initially created by the Entrepeneur Mr. Gates.
If Microsoft Online was truly a start-up it should have experienced the fate of most start-ups and been acquired by a larger competitor, such as Google.
Mr. Ballmer then states that Microsoft will invest $9 billion on R&D. So, this $9 billion investment will be spent on improving existing products and making them better?
It will be spent to follow the "New Strategy" that was created by this campaign and revised by Microsoft employees?
Mr. Ballmer will spend capital to make Win 7 better. Mr. Ballmer will deploy capital to make Online Services better. But, lets not forget that Online is like a start-up with advantages and therefore can pursue things that Google cannot. Such as a deal with Yahoo to become more competitive in the Online sector.
It seems evident that its not the economy that is bad. Despite the poor economy, competitors have posted positive earnings. Mr. Ballmer failed to recognise the importance of Online and is busy trying to rectify this dilemma. However, Mr. Ballmer tries to down play the magnitude of this blunder and state that its better for the company.
Mr. Ballmer failed to recognise the importance of handheld and netbooks. Subsequently, this had a dramatic effect on the company revenue and earnings. The company is equally dependent on OS for revenue and subsequently the company experienced a double digit decline. Refer to http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/technology/microsoft_earnings/index.htm?postversion=2009042316
We will state "Mr. Ballmer we told you so".
When this campaign was launched the main argument for the necessity for a "New Strategy" was to insulate the company from a decline in OS revenue. It was stated there is a trend in SaaS, netbooks, and mobile. It was stated that OS was losing share.
It can be concluded that the only thing that is truly "really bad" is Mr. Ballmer as CEO of Microsoft. We have two suggestions for Mr. Ballmer. First suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. Leave Microsoft and become a public speaker. You can provide insight into how to destroy employee morale through layoffs and poor management. How to miss opportunities and blame other external factors. How to destory billions in shareholder value.
Second suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. Just leave Microsoft. Leave before you lead Microsoft from being "bad" to "really bad".
To offer support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Resignation Instead of Layoffs
In January of this year Mr. Ballmer announced that the company was going to initiate a process of laying off 5,000 employees. This was announced by Mr. Ballmer in an attempt to please Wall Street. Recently Mr. Ballmer announced Phase 2 of the layoffs. Refer to: http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/techtracks/2009/05/05/more_layoffs_at_microsoft_today_says_company_e-mai.html
Naturally, there are numerous sites that indicate the announcement. However, we choose Seattle since it is close to the Hallowed Gates to Microsoft.
Let's summarize.
During Mr. Ballmer's tenure as CEO he pursues billions in acquisitions. Despite this massive spending the company is equally reliant on its cash cows for revenue as it was a decade ago. The primary revenue is derived from OS and Server and Tools.
The acquisitions could also include the failed attempt to acquire Yahoo. It has been mentioned numerous times on this blog that it was a 65% premium bid valued at $45 billion. An analyst with Goldman Sachs stated it was the stupidest move in the company history. However, since the company Online Division had only 8% of the market it was necessary that Mr. Ballmer try to improve his previous failure in this division. The acquisition demonstrates that Mr. Ballmer was to late to gain dominance in this important sector.
The company has deployed billions towards R&D. Despite this massive spending the company has created the Zune, Microsoft Mobile and Vista. According to Mr. Ballmer the Zune was going to destroy Apple. Does anyone other than Mr. Ballmer even remember the Zune?
The success of Microsoft Mobile it evident with the recent announcement that Verizon and Microsoft are going to build a Smart phone. Once again, it will probably prove to be to late to gain any significant market share. Is Mr. Ballmer so dilussional that he believes that a Microsoft Smartphone at this stage in time will compete with iphone or Blackberry?
Suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. If you want a opportunity to compete with Apple and RIM, we suggest that you acquire the later.
There is also the reception of consumers with Vista. The company is losing share in OS and Mr. Ballmer has failed to insulate the company from its dependance on OS. This reality is demonstrated with the company recent earnings release.
Mr. Ballmer deployed $40 billion towards share buybacks. Despite deploying $40 billion the company shares remained flat and stagnant.
Mr. Ballmer has blamed numerous circumstances for the company perfomance and the stagnant share price. Reports indicate that the only real blame for the company performance and stagnant share price is Mr. Ballmer.
Mr. Ballmer has destroyed the company. Mr. Ballmer is leading the company towards a precipice. In a poll with GlassDoor and CNBC, Mr. Ballmer is voted one of the worst CEO's in the technology sector. Refer to http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/2009/01/cnbc-reports-on-ceo-ratings-the-future-of-glassdoor-and-whos-getting-a-bonus/
It could be argued that the company has experienced growth in revenue and earnings. This shouldn't be counted as a tremendous accomplishment based on emerging markets and controlling 80% of the OS market.
The company is losing share in OS, it's trailing in Online, its trailing in mobile. Mr. Ballmer has not only destroyed the company from a financial perspective but also the company image. With the release of Vista and Zune the company has a battered image. This is demonstrated by the Apple advertisements.
More importantely Mr. Ballmer has destroyed the company morale. For a view of company morale refer to Mini Microsoft at http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
If Mr. Ballmer truly wants to please Wall Street, analysts, employees and shareholders..instead of layoffs he should announce his resignation. The biggest favor Mr. Ballmer can do for the morale of the company and future of the company is resign.
To offer support in shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Naturally, there are numerous sites that indicate the announcement. However, we choose Seattle since it is close to the Hallowed Gates to Microsoft.
Let's summarize.
During Mr. Ballmer's tenure as CEO he pursues billions in acquisitions. Despite this massive spending the company is equally reliant on its cash cows for revenue as it was a decade ago. The primary revenue is derived from OS and Server and Tools.
The acquisitions could also include the failed attempt to acquire Yahoo. It has been mentioned numerous times on this blog that it was a 65% premium bid valued at $45 billion. An analyst with Goldman Sachs stated it was the stupidest move in the company history. However, since the company Online Division had only 8% of the market it was necessary that Mr. Ballmer try to improve his previous failure in this division. The acquisition demonstrates that Mr. Ballmer was to late to gain dominance in this important sector.
The company has deployed billions towards R&D. Despite this massive spending the company has created the Zune, Microsoft Mobile and Vista. According to Mr. Ballmer the Zune was going to destroy Apple. Does anyone other than Mr. Ballmer even remember the Zune?
The success of Microsoft Mobile it evident with the recent announcement that Verizon and Microsoft are going to build a Smart phone. Once again, it will probably prove to be to late to gain any significant market share. Is Mr. Ballmer so dilussional that he believes that a Microsoft Smartphone at this stage in time will compete with iphone or Blackberry?
Suggestion to Mr. Ballmer. If you want a opportunity to compete with Apple and RIM, we suggest that you acquire the later.
There is also the reception of consumers with Vista. The company is losing share in OS and Mr. Ballmer has failed to insulate the company from its dependance on OS. This reality is demonstrated with the company recent earnings release.
Mr. Ballmer deployed $40 billion towards share buybacks. Despite deploying $40 billion the company shares remained flat and stagnant.
Mr. Ballmer has blamed numerous circumstances for the company perfomance and the stagnant share price. Reports indicate that the only real blame for the company performance and stagnant share price is Mr. Ballmer.
Mr. Ballmer has destroyed the company. Mr. Ballmer is leading the company towards a precipice. In a poll with GlassDoor and CNBC, Mr. Ballmer is voted one of the worst CEO's in the technology sector. Refer to http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/2009/01/cnbc-reports-on-ceo-ratings-the-future-of-glassdoor-and-whos-getting-a-bonus/
It could be argued that the company has experienced growth in revenue and earnings. This shouldn't be counted as a tremendous accomplishment based on emerging markets and controlling 80% of the OS market.
The company is losing share in OS, it's trailing in Online, its trailing in mobile. Mr. Ballmer has not only destroyed the company from a financial perspective but also the company image. With the release of Vista and Zune the company has a battered image. This is demonstrated by the Apple advertisements.
More importantely Mr. Ballmer has destroyed the company morale. For a view of company morale refer to Mini Microsoft at http://minimsft.blogspot.com/
If Mr. Ballmer truly wants to please Wall Street, analysts, employees and shareholders..instead of layoffs he should announce his resignation. The biggest favor Mr. Ballmer can do for the morale of the company and future of the company is resign.
To offer support in shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Friday, May 1, 2009
Will the Smartphone Alliance Prove to be SMART
When this campaign was launched in mid-December 2008, it was indicated that Microsoft was required to pursue a game changing strategy within the mobile sector. It was stated that the alliances Microsoft was creating would fail to create the necessary revenue and market share. This was confirmed by a Citi analyst that Microsoft would probably not break even with its Verizon alliance. Refer to http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38350
Initially, the campaign was seeking Microsoft to acquire Sprint. The logic was that Sprint had a fairly solid subscriber base that would provide Microsoft with a foundation for guaranteed revenue. Refer to http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37991
The campaign indicated that it was seeking feedback and insight from Microsoft employees. Subsequently, an employee provided analysis of the benefits of Microsoft acquiring Research In Motion. The campaign adopted the strategy of Microsoft acquiring RIM based on this insightful analysis and argument.
Recently, Microsoft has announced an alliance with Verizon to create a Smartphone. Refer to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Microsoft-Verizon-reportedly-making-smartphone/story.aspx?guid=%7B848ADF8A-444D-4A2F-BC73-78F9F4C9CB8B%7D
This leaves the campaign pondering one major question. Can Mr. Ballmer actually develop a Smartphone that would rival iPhone?
During Mr. Ballmer's tenure as CEO of Microsoft the company has spent billions on its Online Services. The company has deployed billions on R&D. Additionally, the company has deployed billions on acquisitions that according to Mr. Ballmer will make its online division more competitive. Despite this massive spending the company has failed to gain any market share. In 2005 the company controlled approximately 7%. Currently, the company controls approximately 8%. Refer to http://www.pcworld.com/article/161222/report_microsoft_us_search_share_hits_12month_low.html?tk=rss_news
We could also mention the attempt to capture Online share through the proposed 65% premium bid for Yahoo. We could mention it was valued at $45 billion. It could also be mentioned that an analyst with Goldman Sachs stated it was the stupidest move in the company history.
Mr. Ballmer announced the release of Zune. During the launch campaign Mr. Ballmer stated it was going to directly threaten Apple. The following spoof infommercial summarizes Mr. Ballmer's success. Refer to: http://www.iphonebuzz.com/zune-phone-infomercial-presented-by-steve-ballmer-27476.php
Through Mr. Ballmer's tenure there was also the failure of Vista. The company deployed billions. This resulted in failure. Mr. Ballmer's solution is simple. We will create a campaign called Mojave Experiment. If we cannot actually sell you our OS then hopefully we can trick you. This leads to Win 7 (Vista 2). Numerous reports are stating its only a updated version of Vista.
A recent interview with Mr. Ballmer by the editor-in-chief of McGraw Hill summarizes Mr. Ballmer's success or lack of. Refer to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/paidcontent/main4875846.shtml
This brings us back to the original question. Can Mr. Ballmer actually develop a Smartphone that will rival the iPhone?
Perhaps the following link will best demonstrate the probably of Mr. Ballmer threatening Apple. Refer to http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/invasion-that-wasnt.html
This campaigns prediction is simple. With Mr. Ballmer's previous record, the potential of threatening Apple will prove to be "THE INVASION THAT WASN'T"
But, what do we know?
We are not as smart as Mr. Ballmer. We could never conduct an analysis of the company, compile information from employees and create a viable "Strategy" for the company. Besides, Mr. Ballmer is the best candidate for CEO (sorry, best friend of the founder).
With Mr. Ballmer at the helm of Microsoft the company will likely continue with its outdated reactive approach. It will continue to try to copy competitors. It will continue to deploy capital and fail to gain market share, consumer loyalty.
It is time to rally support for change. This campaign has created a "New Strategy" for Microsoft. A strategy that will enable the company to gain focus and become competitive. It is time to START the REAL INVASION.
To rally support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Initially, the campaign was seeking Microsoft to acquire Sprint. The logic was that Sprint had a fairly solid subscriber base that would provide Microsoft with a foundation for guaranteed revenue. Refer to http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37991
The campaign indicated that it was seeking feedback and insight from Microsoft employees. Subsequently, an employee provided analysis of the benefits of Microsoft acquiring Research In Motion. The campaign adopted the strategy of Microsoft acquiring RIM based on this insightful analysis and argument.
Recently, Microsoft has announced an alliance with Verizon to create a Smartphone. Refer to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Microsoft-Verizon-reportedly-making-smartphone/story.aspx?guid=%7B848ADF8A-444D-4A2F-BC73-78F9F4C9CB8B%7D
This leaves the campaign pondering one major question. Can Mr. Ballmer actually develop a Smartphone that would rival iPhone?
During Mr. Ballmer's tenure as CEO of Microsoft the company has spent billions on its Online Services. The company has deployed billions on R&D. Additionally, the company has deployed billions on acquisitions that according to Mr. Ballmer will make its online division more competitive. Despite this massive spending the company has failed to gain any market share. In 2005 the company controlled approximately 7%. Currently, the company controls approximately 8%. Refer to http://www.pcworld.com/article/161222/report_microsoft_us_search_share_hits_12month_low.html?tk=rss_news
We could also mention the attempt to capture Online share through the proposed 65% premium bid for Yahoo. We could mention it was valued at $45 billion. It could also be mentioned that an analyst with Goldman Sachs stated it was the stupidest move in the company history.
Mr. Ballmer announced the release of Zune. During the launch campaign Mr. Ballmer stated it was going to directly threaten Apple. The following spoof infommercial summarizes Mr. Ballmer's success. Refer to: http://www.iphonebuzz.com/zune-phone-infomercial-presented-by-steve-ballmer-27476.php
Through Mr. Ballmer's tenure there was also the failure of Vista. The company deployed billions. This resulted in failure. Mr. Ballmer's solution is simple. We will create a campaign called Mojave Experiment. If we cannot actually sell you our OS then hopefully we can trick you. This leads to Win 7 (Vista 2). Numerous reports are stating its only a updated version of Vista.
A recent interview with Mr. Ballmer by the editor-in-chief of McGraw Hill summarizes Mr. Ballmer's success or lack of. Refer to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/paidcontent/main4875846.shtml
This brings us back to the original question. Can Mr. Ballmer actually develop a Smartphone that will rival the iPhone?
Perhaps the following link will best demonstrate the probably of Mr. Ballmer threatening Apple. Refer to http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/invasion-that-wasnt.html
This campaigns prediction is simple. With Mr. Ballmer's previous record, the potential of threatening Apple will prove to be "THE INVASION THAT WASN'T"
But, what do we know?
We are not as smart as Mr. Ballmer. We could never conduct an analysis of the company, compile information from employees and create a viable "Strategy" for the company. Besides, Mr. Ballmer is the best candidate for CEO (sorry, best friend of the founder).
With Mr. Ballmer at the helm of Microsoft the company will likely continue with its outdated reactive approach. It will continue to try to copy competitors. It will continue to deploy capital and fail to gain market share, consumer loyalty.
It is time to rally support for change. This campaign has created a "New Strategy" for Microsoft. A strategy that will enable the company to gain focus and become competitive. It is time to START the REAL INVASION.
To rally support through shares contact newstrategy4msft@gmail.com
We can be contacted at thecrandreagroup@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)