From my experience, Microsoft generally likes to push for change behind the scenes through lobbyists and working with the Legislature and government officials. It's currently working very well for them on taxes.
Through this lens, when Microsoft actually engages the public, it's likely either a misfire (like this Windows 7 party video) or an act of desperation. It's hard to gauge which of these best categorizes Microsoft's full page ad in the Seattle Times about the 520 bridge rebuild.
While I actually think Microsoft has good reason to be concerned about the fate of the bridge, it's clearly provoked a fire storm it didn't seem well prepared to deal with. The resulting uproar and Mayor McGinn's well-written letter back to Ballmer seem to represent some kind of public relations backlash.
Microsoft was just stepping up its Olympia lobbying efforts when the Seattle Weekly published my article, Citizen Microsoft in '04. Note: that's why they put Bill Gates in a gorilla suit on the cover. I wrote that their public gesturing on education and software piracy seemed hypocritical:
Last year, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer told an audience of Eastern Washington University alumni: "Taxpayers in the state have to come to grips with the notion that we need to invest in higher education." It was a warning shot of sorts from the most influential CEO in the state. Ballmer had to know, however, that Microsoft wouldn't be footing much of the bill if taxpayers increased education funding. Seven years ago, Microsoft opened a small office in Reno, Nev., to collect the money it got from PC manufacturers that installed Windows and Office on the computers they sold. In the years since, Microsoft has sheltered more than $60 billion in royalty revenue in Nevada, a state with no corporate income tax, costing Washington an estimated $327 million in unrealized tax revenue.
Ballmer's remark wasn't the only time Microsoft has been hypocritical about taxes and education. In 1999, Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith raised the subject of lost state tax revenue in a press release promoting stricter state antipiracy laws. "To put in perspective the impact of software piracy on our taxes alone, consider that we've lost 41 times [$41 million] the amount already donated to the John Stanford Book Fund—and could have purchased well over a million new books for our schools," Smith said. What Smith didn't say is that Microsoft's domestic "off-shoring" of royalty revenue—making the transactions in Nevada instead of Washington—cost the state $75 million in the first two years of the company doing business in Reno. Since the move, Microsoft has annually saved an average of $40.8 million in Washington taxes.
Microsoft seemed to back off its public rhetoric after the story came out and take a behind the scenes approach. Generally, I think when Microsoft tries to make populist arguments, it just rings hypocritical due to the fact that Chairman Gates and CEO Ballmer are two of the wealthiest men in the world. They could each fund the Highway 520 bridge rebuild out of their own pockets with plenty to spare.
Besides, the urban future needs public transit, not highways for single occupancy cars. Microsoft's backward stance on the bridge reflects some of its slow response to technology shifts in key product areas the past ten years.
For the record, I would love to see a Windows 7 Party Video - Let's move 520 Bridge Ad remix.
Recent Comments