Microsoft: No more boom towns, only Bing towns

In 2010, Google announced an experimental fiber network and wanted to bring this experiment to life in a handful of small cities across the country. One town that tried to lobby the search giant was Topeka, Kansas. They wanted Google to roll out fiber in their city so much that they temporarily changed their name to Google, KS. Unfortunately for them, Google picked Kansas City, instead.

Enter Microsoft. In an effort to convince people that Bing is superior to Google, they’ve been going around the country filming commercials of ordinary users seeing results from both of the search giants and picking the one they like better. This time, the Topeka Capital-Journal reports that Microsoft went to Google Topeka, KS to shoot the next commercial. They picked the city solely because it would be recognizable due to the name change.

So how did Bing do in the challenge? The first person questioned, Jenny Curatola, typically uses Google but found that she preferred Bing during the challenge. She says that she’s going to “rethink her searching strategy," although we assume she wasn't told about the extra malware that comes through via Bing.

The commercial guide summed up Microsoft’s strategy: “You tried to name your town Google, but it’s a Bing town. No more boom towns, only Bing towns."

The commercial will begin airing next month.

Source: Topeka Capital-Journal

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

From the Forums: Official Neowin photography contest reminder (with Giveaway)

Next Story

Hands-on with the Asus VivoTab Smart

43 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So basically the ad agency will record a bunch of people, cherry pick the ones that favor bing for whatever reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying search tech and then string the cherry picked testimony together and stage it to appear like everyone prefers bing. That about right?

Unfortunately for MS no amount of advertising will make their search engine better, and people will decide for themselves at home without the need to be preached to or swayed by plainfolks propaganda.

Why doesn't Microsoft stop acting like a spoiled brat?
Maybe Google should roll out high speed internet in Microsoft's back door of Redmond, Washington.

What's not a new: a town change his (temp) name to Google.
What's new : Microsoft is BS Google with (oh surprise) another ads.

On average over a period of *18 months* AV-Test found Bing results to include sites serving malware in 0,0117% of searches, where Google returned results to malware in 0,0025% of searches. In a scientific context, those percentages would be called "insignificant" which technically means it's totally up to chance.

And think about it for a minute: bots traversing the internet might take samples of software of sites they index and skip malware sites - or they might not. Or maybe more Google customers got hit by malware in searches which is reported back to Google, so the site can be blacklisted. It might be out of obscurity that Bing served more than Google, simply because Google sits on ~67% of the US market share and higher shares in other markets (just like Mac PCs didn't (used to) get a large share of malware like Windows, because of a low marketshare).

Which of the above statements are right? You can't tell, and AV-Test who conducted the test, can't tell. And some editor on Neowin can't either.

AV-Test further reported the malware vectors to be outdated Adobe reader and browser plugins. Think about that too and guess which software on Windows is the #1 most insecure and vulnarable to attacks and malware. Answer is here: http://secunia.com/vulnerabili...erability_update_top50.html

Now, now, let's not confuse anyone with facts. It's much more fun to mock and deride Bing, because doing so demonstrates one's smug superiority and coolness. /s

by that report chrome has 4x more problems than a much larger user base in ie.
Is nice that you posted this and just shows that even windows 7 as a whole operating system has much lower problems than a web browser like chrome.
Its time people stop bashing MS about unverified crap and look to the companies that have more problems like google and apple.

I don't get why people keep saying the Google results are better. I use both and there are times when I fail to find what I need in one and I switch to the other and find what I need.

I use Bing in the US version and add the loc: or language: modifier to searches, and find the local results to be better than Google. Image and Video search is also invariably better on Bing than Google.

heimlich said,
I use Bing in the US version and add the loc: or language: modifier to searches, and find the local results to be better than Google. Image and Video search is also invariably better on Bing than Google.

Bing results are better in the UK too.

Same here

In my native language it's almost impossible to find the correct thing on Bing and even in English it's a stretch sometimes.

So is Google giving it away for free? (The fiber connection I mean) Nope. So they are just another ISP. Just like MS is trying to be another Ad agency.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
So is Google giving it away for free? (The fiber connection I mean) Nope. So they are just another ISP.

It's deploying it in areas that have poorly developed infrastructure and limited competition. Is it doing it for profit? Sure. It is benefiting the communities? Absolutely.

And...? That's what all ISPs around the world do, why is Google something special now? Just because it's Google I should care? I wouldn't care if it was Yahoo offering it as long as someone is.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
And...? That's what all ISPs around the world do, why is Google something special now? Just because it's Google I should care?

Because it is offering speeds considerably beyond the competition and doing so without data caps, which is uncommon for the US. It is offering a genuinely better service than the competition. Oh, and it's cheapest service is free (minus connection fee).

That's called competition. Next argument? Still don't see why is this anything special, they aren't doing anything from the good of their heart, it's all about profits. Why did you even bring it into discussion is out of my reach of understanding..

I don't see what your point is. All I was doing was pointing out that Google is investing in infrastructure and offering a superior service to the competition, while Microsoft is simply making adverts.

So my question remains, why is Google something special just for offering an service that is better than others? That's exactly what ISP's around the world do, they try to give out the best service possible for the biggest amount of customers. But since it's Google it's sacred somehow and should be seen as an act of kindness? What a load of..

I have no hostility towards them. You're imagining things.. And still your point doesn't hold water. Just to end my discussion here, you're trying to shine a bright light on them from an empty spot, what they are doing is what they are supposed to do when they entered the ISP business. Easy and simple. I'm done.

It's deploying it in areas that have poorly developed infrastructure and limited competition. Is it doing it for profit? Sure. It is benefiting the communities? Absolutely.

Um Austin Texas doesn't have poorly developed infrastructure, not by a long shot. And Topeka, KS already had FIOS available from Verizon (speeds upto 300Mbps). So sure they weren't getting 1Gbps but it's not like they were suffering with 56k connections.

And as for data caps? A lot of ISPs don't have them but Comcast and AT&T does.

theyarecomingforyou said,
So Google is offering high-speed fibre connections and Microsoft is offering... adverts? Yeah, that'll work.

So we are back again to ads are bad?

Edit: Oh, and you must have missed the part where Google did not give Google, er, Topeka KS fiber. So they obviously are NOT offering high-speed fiber.

Edited by SoylentG, Apr 13 2013, 6:22pm :

SoylentG said,
So we are back again to ads are bad?

When they're targeted against a competitor, yes. Microsoft's recent advertising campaigns have focused on trashing Google rather than promoting its own products.

Sorry I meant Kansas. There are a few ISPs that offer good speeds with no data caps and then there's Comcast.

I'm not saying what Google is doing is bad, there needs to be more competition in the ISP space so its a good thing that Google is now offering fiber. Just saying that Google isn't doing it to be "nice," they're doing it to earn money.

theyarecomingforyou said,

When they're targeted against a competitor, yes. Microsoft's recent advertising campaigns have focused on trashing Google rather than promoting its own products.

And when Google modified their "pristine" home page to target IE users to switch to Chrome, that didn't count?

SoylentG said,
And when Google modified their "pristine" home page to target IE users to switch to Chrome, that didn't count?

Criticising Microsoft for a negative ad campaign does NOT mean that I support other companies doing the same. Bad ads are bad.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Criticising Microsoft for a negative ad campaign does NOT mean that I support other companies doing the same. Bad ads are bad.

The point is that many companies have done the same to Microsoft, and it was a good thing because they were standing up to the big, bad, evil Microsoft. But then the tables are turned, and the big, bad, evil Microsoft is picking on Google.

SoylentG said,
The point is that many companies have done the same to Microsoft, and it was a good thing because they were standing up to the big, bad, evil Microsoft. But then the tables are turned, and the big, bad, evil Microsoft is picking on Google.

You're missing the point. Google should be criticised for what it's doing wrong and the EU looks like it will be coming down hard on Google for privacy abuses and anti-competitive business practices. Me criticising Microsoft doesn't mean I'm defending Google. I simply dislike Microsoft's recent campaign of attack ads. Admittedly this isn't as negative as some of the others but it's part of a coordinated campaign against Google.

theyarecomingforyou said,

You're missing the point. Google should be criticised for what it's doing wrong and the EU looks like it will be coming down hard on Google for privacy abuses and anti-competitive business practices. Me criticising Microsoft doesn't mean I'm defending Google. I simply dislike Microsoft's recent campaign of attack ads. Admittedly this isn't as negative as some of the others but it's part of a coordinated campaign against Google.


What if Microsoft took a dishsoap approach and just criticized the "leading brand"? ;p

Joshie said,
What if Microsoft took a dishsoap approach and just criticized the "leading brand"? ;p

That's fine in my opinion, as long as it promotes the strengths of their product rather than trashing their competitor.

MVD said,
And 5x more malware than google (according to the recent study that was written about here yesterday)

Sounds a lot scarier than the 0.0000923% difference that it really is when you put it that way. 5 times near nothing is still near nothing, never mind arguably missing out on some results that are false positives.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Because it is offering speeds considerably beyond the competition and doing so without data caps, which is uncommon for the US. It is offering a genuinely better service than the competition. Oh, and it's cheapest service is free (minus connection fee).


Competition in the US yeah. These networks are common in Europe. Plus you then not get actively monitored for 'targeted advertisement'.