Heh. Crisis comms by Microsoft, and actually quite well done.

I’m going to go on a small sidetrack and talk about why I think this is an example of well done comms — mainly because as a PR/journo hybrid, I’ve interest in this area.

I’m always drawn back to the the 4Ds of crisis comms management: deflect, dismiss, defeat and defer, depending on the power and passion of the folks you’re trying to influence.

deflect — powerful, but not passionate
dismiss — not powerful, not passionate
defeat — not powerful, passionate
defer — powerful and passionate

Microsoft has deflected the issue and stated their points on their own blog (where they control the message).

In this case, the NYT piece is definitely powerful and has broad reach, but the only ones who really care are Microsoft employees. The rest — consumers and investors may be interested, but have far less passion.

So deflect it. The rebuttal article talked mainly about Microsoft’s point of view on innovation and did not engage with the NYT article (i.e. refute charges) besides a one-liner voicing disagreement. And the points they brought up on innovation serves as a nice counterpoint to the NYT story.

Dismissing is probably wrong, as the NYT piece needs some response. Defeating is wrong as well, as going after NYT or author for printing the piece is probably not the best way to go; taking the high road is smart.

And defering is of course plain wrong in this case and going to blow up the issue unnecessarily. One example of deferment is the Toyota Prius brake recall debacle going on; deferring, apologizing and giving info ASAP is the right tack to take.

In all, a well-thought out and executed PR response from MS.

http://blogs.technet.com/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/02/04/measuring-our-work-by-its-broad-impact.aspx