Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
The facts behind the "Get the Facts" ad campaign
Share
Print
CommentsKeep in mind that the GtF campaign did not represent a turn away from honest advertising, but rather continued a policy of deception. In 2003, for example, South Africa forced Microsoft to pull one of its more brazen ads from the market. That ad didn't just try to challenge reality, it tried to turn it upside down by claiming that Windows was so secure it would cause hackers to become extinct.
But that was then and this is GtF. Let's take a look at the different ways the GtF campaign has been conducted, and see why the Linux crowd in particular is so disenchanted with it.
Stacking the deck
When you get to stack the deck ahead of time, anything is possible. The centerpiece of the initial ads in the GtF campaign was a total cost of ownership study, funded by Microsoft, and prepared by IDC, which showed that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. But IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky admitted to BusinessWeek that "the company selected scenarios that would inevitably be more costly using Linux."
Comparing apples to oranges
Microsoft loves false comparisons, but occasionally finds itself in hot water for using them. One "independent" TCO study featured in the GtF campaign claimed Linux was 10 times more costly than Windows. As reported by the BBC, Microsoft was ordered to pull misleading ads purported to compare the cost of the software while not revealing that it was actually comparing the cost of running Linux on two IBM mainframes against the cost of running Windows on a PC with two Intel CPUs.
If it's so obvious, why bother?
You might be wondering why I am reciting all these well-known embarrassments to the rats in Redmond. You've known all along that the Microsoft ads aimed at Linux are misleading and deceptive, whether they are part of the GtF campaign or not. The answer is two-fold: the lies keep coming, and people believe them. Besides, I've discovered a new wrinkle in Microsoft's bag of deceits I want to share with you.
Not long ago, a story and subsequent discussion on Slashdot revealed that one of the latest additions to the GtF -- a biased "study" which supposedly shows disinterest in Linux in the enterprise -- was being taken at face value, exactly as Microsoft intended it to be. Never mind that study's author had twisted the facts and inserted his pro-Redmond bias at every opportunity, as was revealed in a story right here on NewsForge several weeks earlier. The study -- which in fact shows Linux is continuing to penetrate deeper into the heart of Microsoft turf -- was cited on Slashdot as evidence that the GtF campaign was working, and that Linux was losing.
What I didn't know at the time that story was written was that the Info-Tech report was paid for by Microsoft -- just not up front, as in the "funded" reports Microsoft has used before. I guess they've learned that it's a dead giveaway that when they fund a report or a benchmark it is bound to show Microsoft's message, regardless of reality. They were sneakier this time. They paid for it after the fact.
How? I queried Microsoft about that very thing, via their public relations people at Waggener Edstrom. Spokesperson Ted Roduner told me:
Microsoft paid Infotech their standard reprint fee to post their study to the "Get the Facts" site. To be clear, Microsoft did not participate in the creation of the Infotech study and only contacted the firm after the report was made public.
Earlier I had learned that the payment was an "industry standard" reprint fee. But like most Microsoft "industry standards," it was secret, and Microsoft won't reveal it, referring me to Info-Tech for the answer.
Repeated queries to Info-Tech as to the amount of money they earned by having the "study" included in the GtF campaign have gone unanswered. The same firm that originally contacted us about the report, and offered to make its author available for an interview, and which was quick to point out that the report had not been funded by Microsoft, had no comment whatsoever on the amount.
If you haven't noticed, Microsoft has locked in on the erroneous conclusion that Linux has peaked and is now receding in the marketplace. The company will be beating the drums about this for as long as they can.
Good news/bad news
If Microsoft holds to the original time line for the campaign, which kicked off in January 2004 and signaled Microsoft's recognition of the fact that Linux was a serious threat to its empire, this may be the last month you'll have to suffer the ads.
That's the good news. The bad news is that just as Microsoft replaced the failed "Linux Myths" campaign with GtF, it won't be long until it starts churning out the same tired propaganda under a new banner, and many IT buyers will treat such things as fact instead of fantasy.
Microsoft did not abandon honesty when GtF was launched, and it won't return to it when GtF's tour of duplicity is complete. Scorpions, nature, and all that.
Comments
on The facts behind the "Get the Facts" ad campaignNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
It's just so apropos that this story appears with a Microsoft "Get the Facts" ad in the middle of the page. I don't buy the "editorial and ad sales staffs operate independently" bit. It's a lame excuse that only says "it is this way" without explaining why it should be.
Deriding the "Get the Facts" campaign while publishing the very ads you're complaining about is, at best, hypocrisy and only erodes your credibility. Get a leash on your sales staff. If you disapprove of the ads, do something about it.
A publication that proclaims itself "The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source" that takes money to publish ads that are, even they admit, lies about Linux and Open Source is not much of a newspaper.
The ads are random, the first time the page loaded it did have the GtF ads on it, now it has HP ads. From casual observation of the mostly linux site I frequent about half the ads seem to be GtF ads so it's hardly surprising they appear with this story. And you can't criticise them for accepting the ads as they are a business and need to make money.
And the next few times I loaded it there was a Sun ad. The point is the GtF ads shouldn't be in the rotation at all.
From casual observation of the mostly linux site I frequent about half the ads seem to be GtF ads so it's hardly surprising they appear with this story.
What's surprising is that they are on Linux sites to begin with.
And you can't criticise them for accepting the ads as they are a business and need to make money.
Yes, I bloody well can. I can criticize them for how they choose to go about making money. I am sick and tired of this "ends justify the means" bullshit that pretends corporations don't have to be held accountable for their actions so long as they show a profit. Newsforge is supposed to be a Linux and Open Source news site. It says so in their motto at the top of every bloody page. If the GtF ads are deceiving and wrong, bite the bullet and don't run them. Have some integrity. Otherwise, why am I reading it? If they publish stories complaining about the ad campaign and then take money to run those very same ads, why should I trust them at all? Why should I believe another word they say?
This is an issue of Freedom of Speech. It would be wrong for a FOSS news site to refuse advertisements from Microsoft just as it would be wrong for a Windows news site to refuse advertisements from Red Hat.
Cheers,
Daniel.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
No, it isn't. First, the Supreme Court has said that commercial speech does not deserve the same protection under the First Amendment that ordinary speech does. Hence, Truth in Advertising Laws are not unconstitutional. Second, Freedom of Speech does not guarantee a right to be heard. That you have something to say does not mean I have to publish it. Third, the First Amendment only says the government cannot create laws that punish people, in essence, for what they say. It says nothing about non-governmental entities excercising their right to choose what they do and do not publish.
It would be wrong for a FOSS news site to refuse advertisements from Microsoft just as it would be wrong for a Windows news site to refuse advertisements from Red Hat.
Windows sites are perfectly free to refuse advertisements from RedHat just as vegetarian magazines are free to refuse advertisements for meat products. Part of doing business is the ability to select whom you will do business with. But I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft not be allowed to advertise on Newsforge, only that the "Get The Facts" ads be rejected if, as they claim, they find them so wrong.
Who cares what the YOUR law says? Since when does US law have a monopoly on what constitutes freedom of speech? This is not a matter of whether the action is legal or illegal in one particular country. This is an issue of right and wrong, and is independent of legallity.
It would be a very sad day when right vs wrong are reduced to legal vs illegal. It'd be even sadder if only US law mattered.
> Hence, Truth in Advertising Laws are not unconstitutional.
And why should I care about your constitution? And why would constitutionality under US law be a determining factor in this discussion? This is about whether NF is doing right in letting MS present their campaign here, and I say they are because freedom of speech extends to Microsoft expressing their POV here.
> That you have something to say does not mean I have to publish it.
You really seem to confuse right and wrong with "am I legally allowed to...". I'm sorry for you, this is very sad.
> Third, the First Amendment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
I dislike your implicit assumption that I care about your first amednment. Why should your law have any say on right and wrong?
> It says nothing about non-governmental entities excercising their right to choose what they do and do not publish.
Which brings us back to your confusing "legal" with "right". Can't you discuss issues on merit? You seem to feel that as long as the police won't punish you for doing something it must be OK to do it.
Daniel.
What a wild misconception, and an apparently unfortunately popular one these days. Noone is stopping MS from saying whatever they like; however, noone is individually required to provide the vehicle for that message. The fact that you want to run ads does not obligate me to run them on my site, for any amount of money.
Someone explain to me why its "wrong" to refuse to run ads in your own space that you think are not only controversial or competetive, but actually deceptive?
Of course, however, this separation of editorial and advertising staff does not excuse the advertising staff from culpability for running dishonest ads, and that is the real problem here. If the Microsoft ads weren't false advertising, there would be nothing wrong with them being run alongside of Linux articles under the idealistic arrangement of keeping editorial and advertising content separate, but they are false advertising, so they should not be run at all by anyone, but particularly not by people who ought to know how deceptive they are.
Another point is that, although advertising and editorial content would ideally not relate to each other at all, in the real world they often do. In the real world, advertisers sometimes pull their ads, or threaten to pull them, in the face of a negative review. In the real world Windows oriented publications don't run Linux ads, so why should Linux oriented publications run Windows ads?
I agree with this completely. This does not, however, preclude the editorial staff from advising the advertising department on what ads they should and should not be running.
Of course, however, this separation of editorial and advertising staff does not excuse the advertising staff from culpability for running dishonest ads, and that is the real problem here. If the Microsoft ads weren't false advertising, there would be nothing wrong with them being run alongside of Linux articles under the idealistic arrangement of keeping editorial and advertising content separate, but they are false advertising, so they should not be run at all by anyone, but particularly not by people who ought to know how deceptive they are.
This too is a valid point except that it depends on what you mean by "false advertising". An ad can be misleading and not run afoul of false advertising laws. If a publication believes that an ad is misleading, or disagrees with it for any other reason, they should be able to tell the advertising department, "Don't run that ad," regardless of whether the ad is legally "false advertising".
The point is that the advertising should support the publication so that the content can be published. It's when the content is only published to bring in the advertising revenue that the publication loses credibility. But, sadly, that is the state of journalism in the US: driven by advertising revenue rather than by reporting the facts.
<a href="http://www.indiainfoline.com/news/news.asp?dat=61173" title="indiainfoline.com">http://www.indiainfoline.com/news/news.asp?dat=61<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> 73</a indiainfoline.com>
Yes. It is cheaper. Web browser update? Reboot. New application to install? Reboot.
Yep. That's lower cost.
Hey, how about trusting Microsoft to tell you that you need to update your PDF viewer from adobe. Yeah, you can count on them for that.
That sure is better than RHN, apt, etc...updating everything and only needing to be rebooted after a kernel upgrade (and then not really needing to be rebooted until you have time instead of immediately).
Yep. I buy their story hook, line, and sinker.
-Chris
i still don't understand why everyone was congratulating that dirtbag on his new job on slashdot.
Grow up, people! A job is important to LIVE!
(God, I hate it when persons think that working must be politics....)
Judas would be more suitable. For the unfamiliar with Biblical stories, Judas betrayed Jesus. => Judas = traitor
Going to work for a company that stands for everything that is wrong with technology when you have been one of the more relevant heroes of the opposing team is contemptible. To say otherwise is naive and makes one think that you either just got laid for the first time ever, or, are also a microserf. So... How's the weather in Redmond?
I'd love to show them that picking up a Unix Cert is a lot easier than a M$ one, but whatever, to hell w/ 'em.
Good article though, I am getting tired of all the Microsoft propaganda going around. As if all the stuff saying Linux isn't ready for the desktop is hard enough to combat, now we also have to prove linux is better than windows in the server market...
One of the powers of Linux is that it is deversified into many types. Red Hat is probably the most expensive Linux on the market.
If an independant ran these tests, they would have to evaluate not only the $$ brands of Linux, but the free brands. That means no lisencing fees.
Plus I bet they did not include the costs of re-boots and down time for the re-boots whaen applying patches.
And the list goes on....
If they aren't aimed at Linux ( cleverly NOT mentioning Linux ) then I don't know what they are aimed at.
Windows has a monopoly in the market. How would airing commercials against Linux make it any harder for Linux market penetration? It is already a concrete wall of a barrier. The fact that Linux is doing so well is amazing.
Running commercials against Linux will not change anything. Certainly not until Linux has a significant market share already.
Inspire, be imaginative CreaTe
With the endless Software and Devices that run on Microsoft Windows why would you turn anywhere else
Why is that ad necessary?
would it happen to have anything to do with when switched my cousins and to Linux Mandrake instead buying XP for them?
because MS has so much money it literally doesn't know what to do with it.
not to mention the need to continually promote the brand and associate it with feel-good imagery like that which you described. they're fighting linux on the sub-logical level with consumers.
Alot of Joe Six Packs would turn around and say "What is this Linux anyway, never heard of it before", you turn around and say "well let me show you the truth"
Microsoft's position is a little like a dream where you get to close to the edge of a very high ledge that you can't back away from, and if you move you can feel yourself sliding towards the edge. But if you don't do something, the gradual slipping from sitting still will inevitably send you to your doom.
I don't think Microsoft will be cast off any edge if you were to relate this analgy to real life, but I do think that no matter what, they will lose market share to the competitors and there's nothing they can do about it, not even with patents (patents do eventually run out).
when applied to computing, patents are effectively eternal.
Is MS$ so bad off that they need to get their employees to put pro MS$ comments on this site.
I say, if an article can't be displayed with an add of its very enemy, then it's not worth displaying at all.
Complaining about their marketing strategy while helping them to execute it is nothing short of hypocrisy.
Glad I don't live there.
No. If you read what I wrote, you'd see where I said "debate their claims openly", that is, discuss their claims and why they are wrong. It is hte taking of money to help spread the claims you disagree with that I have a problem.
If I made the decisions on what ads would be run on OSTG sites and what ads would not, I would agree with you that I wouldn't have much standing to expose them for the duplicitous, purposely misleading, and often illegal doggerel that they are.
I have taken no money for their ads.
I didn't say you, personally, did. I was using the word "you" as a device to apply my advice in a more general context eg. if you do this, then you are a hypocrite. One could just as easily have used the word "one" where one used "you".
If I made the decisions on what ads would be run on OSTG sites and what ads would not, I would agree with you that I wouldn't have much standing to expose them for the duplicitous, purposely misleading, and often illegal doggerel that they are.
Which was my bloody point to begin with but you (personally) chose to accuse me of letting them lie without exposing it.
There is nothing unique and specific about Windows OS. It was always just a platform for Microsoft Office. I guess they need GtF and similar campaigns to keep it going.
DG
Wait....
FIRST use Firefox!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
But they are only one prong, and probably the least effective, of Microsoft's attack on the Free Software world.
Ads will never kill Linux. Some of their other campaigns might. For example:
- Bribing politicians to pass laws that will severely damage Free Software (e.g. software patents)
- Buying companies that develop applications, and canceling Linux versions (e.g. Sybari)
- Persuading, or coercing, hardware manufacturers not to release programming data for their devices (video cards etc)
- Persuading, or coercing, computer vendors not to offer pre-installed Linux at a lower price than pre-installed Windows
Those are just a few that are obvious. There are surely others.
It seems to me that we have no defense against attacks #1 and #2 at all - and #1 does have the potential to kill Linux. We seem to have made a little progress with #3 and #4, but we have to keep trying all the time. Microsoft never lets up.
The dishonest ads are such a minor part of the campaign that I think they are only barely worth bothering about. Most people with more brain than a mouse realize that Microsoft is a habitually dishonest company, and don't pay much attention to its ads.
Microsoft would be very happy if everybody did that. It got paid for the pre-installed W/XP, and Bill Gates is laughing at you all the way to the bank.
With regards to point #1, there are a number of excellently positioned and respected (and insanely well qualified) individuals on 'our' side. One example of an individual doing a lot of work in this area (for free) is Eben Moglen (Professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel for the FSF.) There are others doing similar things as well - Harry Rosen is another good example that comes to mind. There are also large and well-sponsored community groups as well with specific emphasis on the issue of software patents. I do not believe that bribery will go unnoticed, with the small army of individuals (and journalists, and companies) that make it their business to keep a very close eye on what is going on in this area.
As for #2, I don't see this as being a huge issue. Companies willing to be acquired by Microsoft (and other Microsoft-esque entities) clearly do not believe strongly enough in Free Software or Open Source to either: A) Not sell out, or B) Ensure in the details of the sale that their products will not be in any way discontinued or bastardised after the acquisition process.
As for 3/4, the hardware manufacturers will always do what customers demand. Already, Dell/IBM/HP offer machines with Linux (sure, for servers, but it is a start) and this will eventually filter doen to desktop/notebook computer sales provided a decent alternative to Windows exists (and there are many..)
Cheers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
True, but we have lost or are losing all the key battles. Software patents are now entrenched in the USA. In Europe, the battle is not yet quite over but we are in a very bad position, and will probably lose. With software patents established in the biggest economies, the mechanisms of the WTO can be used to pressure other countries to toe the line. It's not enough to have good people on our side when the enemy can afford $billions. As well as bribes (some of which can paid openly and perfectly legally as campaign donations, of course) and armies of lobbyists, there are other forms of pressure which a corporation as wealthy as Microsoft can apply. For example, in the European software-patents battle, Microsoft at one point threatened Denmark with the withdrawal of a significant number of jobs from Denmark: <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050215071109231" title="groklaw.net">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050215<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 71109231</a groklaw.net>.
I don't know if free software can survive against strategy #1; for sure we need more ideas. Having a good team has not been enough.
linux simply does not exist.
It's a farce that many have created in an attempt to illegally take down our company. It's really a Brazillian organisation hell bent on killing the American Dream. Please, we assure you, keep buying Windows to fight the terrorists!
Also, google is dead, and so is the Ipod.
That is all.
Anyway, whenever I see GTF, I read WTF.
I know just how trustworthy a company that makes an Operating System that's 0WNZ3D within the first four minutes it's on the Internet, is in its advertisements. And how trustworthy a company that goes and hides behind a Linux firewall when it comes under malware DDOS attack is when it tells me that MS Windows is more secure than Linux. And I have to delouse MS Win98 PCs from their malware. I might know what I am talking about.
Wesley Parish
No, but it's a sad fact that high-level IT spending decisions are made by people who have little or no technical competence. I'm contracting for a large bank (it's one of the 5 biggest banks in the world), which recently finished rolling out Windows XP to all its desktops, replacing Windows NT. A reasonable decision in itself. But the "upgrade" included replacing Netscape 7, which was standard on all the NT desktops, with MSIE. We're behind a firewall, of course, so security isn't much of an issue. But MSIE is really an ancient piece of crap compared even with Netscape 7. We have lost tabbed browsing, for example. No technical person in the bank thinks this was a good decision.
Linux is the opposite of monoculture, so we need open source with a 'config' and 'make' option to deal with all the variations. If you deal with 'Binary Land', such as engineering analysis code, it becomes impossible to run Linux if you are running many codes. Each one has a Linux binary for a few configurations.
Graphic cards and games are the other big thing, since they want to keep the code secret. I can never see the 'Closed Source' people going for Linux in a big way.
Look, I know that the ads are misleading and Microsoft is using underhanded tactics but that's advertising for you. Show me a company that doesn't exaggerate or give anything but a one-sided view in it's advertising.
I know that I'm not going to be surrounded by girls in bikinis when I start drinking a soda despite how the soda-ad is portrayed. Yet I'm not all up in arms and telling websites to pull the soda ads.
Give the guy reading the ads some credit. Employees high enough in the decision-making chain are not going to be so dumb as to make enterprise decisions based soley on ads from the manufacturers. And even though they maybe mislead by the independence of the studies, they are going to be travelling to the Microsoft site to read them and will think to themselves "I'll take this study with a grain of salt".
You are advocating censorship.
No. He's saying that you should not spread lies.
If Microsoft's ads are wrong legally then they should be pulled, but until that time what you are advocating is wrong.
Publishing LIES intentionally is wrong. Wether or not it's legal is irrelevant.
Legality does not equal ethicality
Who decides on which ads are fine and which are not? Why should it be you, or me, or anyone in particular?
Whoever chooses to disseminate a message, in print, on the net, or verbally, is morally responsible for what they are saying. Monetary gain does not justify intentionally telling lies.
Certain members of the Linux community have to stop being cry-babies. Let's face it, the issue here is not "ethically wrong ads" it's "pro-Microsoft ads". I don't see anyone analyzing anybody's ads on this site other than the Microsoft ones for "ethicality". Why not? If ethicality is your issue then take every ad to task. I see an ad now that says "IBM makes Linux migration easy". Have you analyzed that statement for truthfullness? I don't hear anyone yelling for that one to be pulled.
I'm the first in line to hope that Linux humbles Microsoft and pulls a great deal of business from them. I'm no Microsoft shill. I'm just tired of certain members of the Linux community being incessant whiners about nothing. Fight the fight but do it with your head held high, not like a cowering fool.
Where are the lies?
If you intentionally and grossly misrepresent reality I call it lying.
You're free to call it something else. I'm free to call that disingenuous.
Irony
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 25, 2005 03:29 AM#