Channel 9 Unwired

The story begins with publication of April Wired, which cover topic is how companies are realizing the benefits of greater transparency. Part of the package: "Operation Channel 9." I received a copy on Saturday.

The Channel 9 story came to a troubling end with reporter Fred Vogelstein revealing:

"Someone at Microsoft unintentionally e-mailed me the confidential dossier the company keeps on reporters writing stories about it (presumably a common practice among big corporations). My file ran to 5,500 words and included all the angles I had been pursuing (along with suggested responses to my questions), the people outside the company they thought I had talked to, detailed background on Wired and how it has covered Microsoft, and notes on me and my interviewing style."

Microsoft Pitches Wired on Channel 9
The story might have ended there if not for Wired's next step. In the interest of transparency—after all, that was the cover topic—Wired chose to post what Microsoft calls a briefing file. Microsoft must have taken the publication of the dossier as an affront because bloggers at Microsoft and public relations firm Waggener Edstrom went on the offense and, in typical PR fashion, used misdirection to divert away from the leaked material.

The dossier's existence isn't the problem for Microsoft. Many journalists covering Microsoft know that Waggener Edstrom keeps dossiers about them. I've never seen my file, but a half dozen years or so ago, someone at Waggener Edstrom shared some contents during a phone call. No doubt, other companies keep files on reporters—and who knows what files the White House keeps on Washington-based reporters.

The dossier's contents are somewhat embarrassing for Microsoft, and the blogger response tried to diminish them. The dossier details Microsoft's concerted efforts to convince Wired to write a story about Channel 9 and position the video blogsite as a sign that Microsoft has changed, that it is more transparent. From the leaked material:

"CharlesF [Charles Fitzgerald] met with Chris Anderson (Wired's editor in chief) during his fall tour in '06, placing the idea that Microsoft is thinking differently and creatively around its outreach—with a prime example being Jeff Sandquist's work with Channel 9 and 10. Our goal was to tell a story about the company's work in this area and help raise the visibility of some of the personalities working on the community efforts, especially on the heels of [Robert] Scoble's departure."

The dossier details other meetings, presumably at some expense to Microsoft, to evangelize new transparency around Channel 9 and employee blogs, including a trip by Sandquist to meet with Wired's editorial staff. Sandquist leads the Channel 9 and Channel 10 teams.

In the interest of shaping the story and, presumably, supporting the idea of greater transparency, Microsoft gave Vogelstein a fair bit of access to employees working for Channel 9, including time with the team during the Computer Electronics Show in January.

The dossier reveals how Microsoft and its PR agency attempted to set the editorial agenda for Wired: "We're pushing Fred to finish reporting and start writing" and "We will continue to push Fred to make sure there are no surprises."

In an e-mail presumably sent from Waggener Edstrom to a Microsoft executive: "Briefing for your call with Wired is below. We want to keep it short and not offer any new avenues to him—Fred has done plenty of reporting here and it is time for him to stop and just write the article."

There are notes on Vogelstein's interview style and even scripted answers to expected questions. Microsoft pitched the story and clearly had every intention of managing it to a favorable end.

Wired Pulls a Wild Card
Problem: Vogelstein is a pretty good reporter and didn't buy into everything Microsoft fed him. Independently, the reporter reached out to former Microsoft employee Lenn Pryor, who conceived Channel 9 and worked with a somewhat radical team of evangelists, including Scoble and Vic Gundotra, to get the video blogsite launched. Like Pryor, Gundotra and Scoble have left Microsoft.

Pryor's input radically changed the direction of the story—at least from the position laid out in the dossier—to more of a backward look at how Channel 9 got started. Microsoft spin made Channel 9 out to be a fully-sanctioned operation from the get go. Microsoft also wanted a more forward-looking story that raised up current managers, particularly Sandquist. In the end, while the story included photos of Sandquist, Pryor and his comments took a more preeminent role.

After investing executive time and PR dollars into handcrafting a story about increased transparency, Microsoft instead got a story more about radical evangelists bucking the system to push out transparency. Then there was the unwelcome surprise—learning that Vogelstein received the 15-page briefing file and seeing it dominate the closing paragraph of the Channel 9 story. Then on Monday, Wired chose to post the dossier online.

The Microsoft and Wagged blog response to the posting is most unsettling and reason for both companies to re-evaluate their blog policy. Ironically, the postings offer a kind of transparency into the PR tricks some companies use to combat bad news.

Waggener Edstrom's Frank Shaw responded, seemingly laying out from PR's perspective what makes a good interview. However, in a careful reading, Shaw's points don't jive with the tone or direction of the leaked dossier. Shaw's points really apply to a reporter approaching Microsoft with a story in mind. Microsoft repeatedly pitched the Channel 9 story to Wired, which is clear from a careful reading of the dossier. To Shaw's credit, his post is cordial and tactful, even if it misdirects away from the real topic.

Sandquist deserves his evangelism title, because his Wired response post is personal, but again a misdirection. It's a PR tactic journalists see plenty often. The journalist will ask a question and get a long-winded answer that has really nothing to do with the question. Microsoft executives are quite good at this tactic.

Sandquist explains about lunch with Anderson, ending with him "assigning Fred Vogelstein to write the story of Microsoft and transparency" and how the reporter got "unbridled access." The Microsoft blogger also takes a very paternal position, explaining about Wired's learning process. "It will be interesting to watch and see what happens with www.wired.com as they integrate the lessons learned from this interview," he explained. He politely scolds about Wired's "attempts to invent tension that really wasn't there."

Really? That's not the story Pryor, Channel 9's creator, told Wired. Within his group, the people championing Channel 9, there was consensus. Elsewhere—among other product groups, PR specialists and lawyers—Channel 9 faced resistance, according to the Wired story.

Fitzgerald, who is responsible for Microsoft platform strategy, showed little tact in his blog response, which personally attacked and belittled Vogelstein.

"Poor Fred is having to take one for the team," Fitzgerald writes. "Not just the comments about him in the briefing document [but]...from the oh-so-non-transparent Fake Steve." The post by the Fake Steve Jobs, which I won't link to, demeans Vogelstein. Fitzgerald's link to the post endorses the contents and lets him effectively but indirectly poke at Vogelstein.

"Because every company in the world now has the briefing on [Vogelstein]...he'll likely have to change his journalism modus operandi," Fitzgerald continues. "Perhaps we can just fast forward to having Wikipedia entries on every journalist, summarizing their past prose, proclivities and peccadilloes, thereby saving the energy involved in every company preparing for their own interviews."

Fitzgerald continues the misdirection—pointing away from the dossier and Microsoft attempts to handcraft the Wired story—by writing: "Perhaps Wired will embrace their own mantra and practice what they are preaching. They could post the stories they're working on, let people vote on who to put on the cover."

Really? I make the same charge to Fitzgerald. If Microsoft believes so much in transparency, why doesn't it publish all the documentation related to products and technologies as they're being developed—and source code, too. Now, that would be transparency.

In his Wired response post, Sandquist explained that Microsoft has a simple guideline for employee blogging: "Don't be stupid." Does Fitzgerald's post meet that guideline?

If Microsoft's definition of greater transparency is employee and PR agency blogger attacks on Vogelstein and Wired, well, company managers should slap each others' backs in triumph. Fitzgerald should stand first in line.