Microsoft's corporate PR head calls out Google PR exec on Twitter

Earlier this week, we posted up word on a new article in the New York Times that had a profile on Mark Penn, the corporate vice president in charge of Strategic and Special Projects at Microsoft. Penn is the person in charge of the team that came up with the recent "Scroogled" campaign, which tries to show Google Shopping search results are full of paid ads.

The New York Times got a quote from Google PR rep Jill Hazelbaker for the article, who said " ... our focus is on Google and the positive impact our industry has on society, not the competition." That small quote was enough to get Microsoft's corporate PR head, Frank X. Shaw, to call out Hazelbaker on his Twitter account this weekend.

While Hazelbaker also has a Twitter account, it is a private one just for her followers. However, Shaw still proceeded to post messages addressing her directly. At one point, Shaw posted:

There were a number of other Twitter messages that Shaw posted that were directed towards Hazelbaker, including the following series:

It's pretty rare for the head PR rep of a major company to respond directly to another RP exec in this manner. Hazelbaker has yet to respond to Shaw's messages

Source: Frank X. Shaw on Twitter
Via: Business Insider

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

RIM sending out invites for BlackBerry 10 event in NYC

Next Story

IBM: PCs will get a sense of smell in five years

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Haha love it!! Talk about backfire, just shows you that outside of windows fan sites there is so much disdain for microsoft, they were a monopoly for too long and people are happy to see them crumble

thealexweb said,
And its really coming from a neutral source isn't it XD

If the Pope posted it, would it make the facts about what Google does with results and information any less true?

Really?

thenetavenger said,

If the Pope posted it, would it make the facts about what Google does with results and information any less true?

Really?

Yes really, would you trust Google if say they starting peaking around through SkyDrive's TOS deleting user' private data.

nik louch said,
Acting like a douche on twitter: Childish
Not responding to a douche on twitter: Classy

Pretty much. Childish....either that or MS is worried. Either way, very unprofessional. He is representing MS and could of handled this much better.

Where has Google did this? Not saying they have not, but just want to see.

Regardless, any company doing this needs to knock it off. If you cannot sell your products without bashing then find something else to do. To much if this is going on. Used to be products sold based on what they do and what the adverts claimed.

techbeck said,
Where has Google did this? Not saying they have not, but just want to see.

Regardless, any company doing this needs to knock it off. If you cannot sell your products without bashing then find something else to do. To much if this is going on. Used to be products sold based on what they do and what the adverts claimed.

Google got a bit dirty when they claimed Bing was copying search results.

I think it is a little childish but his points are valid and when Google has this white knight and blind following about them, MS have to call them out because these aren't the most obvious issues consumers would notice or even think to care about.

Google knows how to be the cute package that most don't question. When you start to dig I think some users would be quite surprised how they go about their buisness. Microsoft are using this as it's a fair point that some users might take issue with.

WooHoo!!! said,

Google got a bit dirty when they claimed Bing was copying search results.

I think it is a little childish but his points are valid and when Google has this white knight and blind following about them, MS have to call them out because these aren't the most obvious issues consumers would notice or even think to care about.

Google knows how to be the cute package that most don't question. When you start to dig I think some users would be quite surprised how they go about their buisness. Microsoft are using this as it's a fair point that some users might take issue with.

And I am sure if you dig enough on every company you will find similar things. MS cracking om privacy when their windows os is the biggest malware target there is. And this spans over several versions. And there is a professional was to call out other companies and there is what MS did.

techbeck said,

And I am sure if you dig enough on every company you will find similar things. MS cracking om privacy when their windows os is the biggest malware target there is. And this spans over several versions. And there is a professional was to call out other companies and there is what MS did.

MS can be no better but doesn't change the facts, their points are fair game. Google has an aura that MS is trying to break. While a bit childish, it might be enough to nibble at the foundations while the actual competing products do the real talking.

I don't understand your point on malware, they are a big target, MS eventually took it seriously and have done great ever since. Nothing can be perfect all the time.

techbeck said,

And I am sure if you dig enough on every company you will find similar things. MS cracking om privacy when their windows os is the biggest malware target there is. And this spans over several versions. And there is a professional was to call out other companies and there is what MS did.

What does that have to do with MS though?! MS don't make malware, and Win 8 is easily more secure than OSX. If people are stupid enough to download something from a suspicious site, and then purposely run it, ignoring all the security warnings, then it's not Microsofts fault. Theres more malware for Windows simply because it's the most popular OS.

Where as Google actually abuse peoples privacy THEMSELFS. Totally different.

techbeck said,
Point is that MS bases about security issues and they are one of the biggest offenders

Are they now, you've missed some news then. How about the botnets Microsoft has been hunting down? How about developing new techniques to prevent certail exploits or hacks?
There are really few other companies that have invested so fastly into security and defending 'the internet' form offenders. And they do it free of charge. They invest part of their profit back into "society".
Oh and from allot you will never hear much unless you actively track MS's blogs and what not, and even then they do enough that you'll miss plenty.

Stop spreading that FUD man, go invest a lil bit of your time and get some bases before throwing around arguments.

Shadowzz said,

Are they now, you've missed some news then. How about the botnets Microsoft has been hunting down? How about developing new techniques to prevent certail exploits or hacks?

And Google hasnt been trying to put things in place, and have, to help the malware issue on Android. Maybe you may have missed that.


There are really few other companies that have invested so fastly into security and defending 'the internet' form offenders. And they do it free of charge. They invest part of their profit back into "society".

Again, hasnt Google been providing free tools to help curb malware.


Stop spreading that FUD man, go invest a lil bit of your time and get some bases before throwing around arguments.

Just because you feel FUD, doesnt mean others do. I am one man...one opion.

techbeck said,

Pretty much. Childish....either that or MS is worried. Either way, very unprofessional. He is representing MS and could of handled this much better.


+1 This is what blows me away. This guy is representing Microsoft and he is acting like a little jealous kid that is trying to knock down the kid with blocks down a few pegs. What a douche. It makes me like Microsoft even less that they could hire this idiot (although I do love their developer division ).

You could ask the same of any open forum. Give people a text box and a submit button and god help us all.

You won't see any improvement at all as long as people stupidly believe these text boxes are somehow the same thing as free speech.

This entire campaign just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, why can't they both just admit that they make good products and compete? Let the users decide.

They are letting users decide. Normally, I wouldn't agree with this type of campaign, but I have to say it's a good one. Instead of simply just bashing one another, Microsoft is clearly stating (with proven facts and references) what Google is doing. Instead of simply saying Bing is better, they offer points as to why (again with proven points and references). It's an aggressive campaign to wake people up that there are better and unbiased choices out there and not to get misled and tricked into using what everyone else is using.

Omen1393 said,
This entire campaign just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, why can't they both just admit that they make good products and compete? Let the users decide.

Ya, but this is where 'tech' journalism has failed you.

One company is trying to do what is the best for consumers and the technology industry, and implement high levels of privacy and security in their systems because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

The other company is using and selling information under the guise of being 'free', when people are really handing them a rather lucrative amount of information to use that transcends personal privacy issues and as a whole infringes on society in general.

Just the fact that an employee at Google can do a simple Query on all the user's email, GDocs, GVoice logs, GDrive and other services is dangerous. For example, they could do a Query to see how popular Company A's product is, and use that information to invest in the company and control investments. In any other context, access to this type of information would be insider trading.

Google itself uses this information to manipulate markets, sell information to countries (which small countries use to spy on their people as they do not have the protections the US or EU have), and even will sell trend and data from 'inside' user email accounts and GDocs to competitors that can see what is being said about another companies XYZ product in development.

There is a reason many companies are BANNING access to Google services, as they have found leaks that were directly traced to Google and Google selling the information to competitors.

Even if you are NOT a Google user, and send an Email that is private to a friend or coworker, if they forward it on to their personal GMail account or open it on their Android, this information is compromised.

Industrial espionage used to be quite illegal, yet it happens everyday by people that do not understand or care what Google is doing with the information.

To be really honest no one knows what either company does with your data, beyond what they say they do with it, and to say otherwise without proof is just speculation.

j2006 said,
They are letting users decide. Normally, I wouldn't agree with this type of campaign, but I have to say it's a good one. Instead of simply just bashing one another, Microsoft is clearly stating (with proven facts and references) what Google is doing. Instead of simply saying Bing is better, they offer points as to why (again with proven points and references). It's an aggressive campaign to wake people up that there are better and unbiased choices out there and not to get misled and tricked into using what everyone else is using.

I agree. People use Google services and ASSUME that their data is secure (Or at the very least, not purposely shared with others). They should be educated that this is not the case, and I'm glad someone is doing it.

Microsoft, for all the flack they get, takes privacy and security VERY seriously. Google on the other hand does not care, and in fact prefers things to be insecure and doesn't want to be held to any security or privacy standards... Why shouldn't people know that?

Google is lobbying for a less dumb patent system, that seems like a good thing to me.

Of course if you're saying it's only self-serving, then that is of course true, but there's no reason why serving yourself can't serve others at the same time

ambiance said,
Google is lobbying for a less dumb patent system, that seems like a good thing to me.

Ya, the one bright spot in their billion dollar lobbying budget.

FISKER_Q said,
Google is lobbying for a less dumb patent system, that seems like a good thing to me.

Of course if you're saying it's only self-serving, then that is of course true, but there's no reason why serving yourself can't serve others at the same time


How interesting! Most of the Internet's anti-patent, pro-reform types don't think the government can be trusted to do anything right. But to support lobbying suggests a belief that the government can both (a) listen to others and (b) ultimately get the job done.

Since, you know, that's what lobbying is: asking the government to do stuff.

It's good to see so much faith restored in our democracy.

ambiance said,
Pot calling the kettle black much? There's no such thing as good lobbying even if it is less than Google

Test this theory yourself... Do a simple Bing/Google search for legislation that both companies have backed and supported in the past couple of years.

You will find that Microsoft backs things like privacy, 'true' net neutrality, government security requirements, etc.

In direct contrast, you will find that Google in these specific items I mention are lobbying against the same legislation.

So Google is spending money to keep the congress from passing Privacy Laws, Microsoft is spending money to educate lawmakers so they will pass Privacy Laws.


Protecting privacy - good, protecting internet neutrality - good, requiring high levels of security for government systems - good.

This is where Microsoft was lobbying for the right things and even fighting back against Google that on the security issue has been trying to get government security requirements REDUCED so that their systems would be eligible for use by more agencies.

Google shamefully was successful in getting security and privacy requirements reduced so that some of Google's hosted services could be used in more agencies, it was easier to spend money on lobbying to get the requirements changed than to actually increase their security and privacy models on their servers. (Which is more than a bit scary that Google can literally QUERY all data stored by some government agencies now.)


Google and Apple have changed political sides in the past 7 years and they are not supporting things that are in the best interests of the general public.

Microsoft on the other hand is primarily supporting things that are for the general public. This is WHY Microsoft's PR person was calling out Google on these specific issues (go back and read the tweets about lobbying and transparency).

Microsoft are not angels, especially with Ballmer leading the company, as Gates has had harsh words for some things Ballmer initiated in the political system under the Microsoft banner and later stopped.


However to ignorantly deem all 'lobbying' as BAD or EVIL is NOT understanding how the system works.

Just because Delay and the K Street people exemplified how corrupt lobbying can be, does not mean that all lobbying has this hold on politicians or is there to purchase politicians.

There are well meaning scientists and think tanks that are nonprofit and provide 'information' to politicians all the time in the form of Lobbying that expect NOTHING in return but for their information to be considered.

I'm not sure what you're specifically talking about here, but really sensitive government data just isn't for the cloud.

Basically the main issue i hear is that governments want stringent controls with how and where data is placed, which is just counter-intuitive to the entire cloud concept.

I don't really think that's a model upon which Google can improve, unless we move away from cloud hosting.

thenetavenger said,

Test this theory yourself... Do a simple Bing/Google search for legislation that both companies have backed and supported in the past couple of years.

You will find that Microsoft backs things like privacy, 'true' net neutrality, government security requirements, etc.

In direct contrast, you will find that Google in these specific items I mention are lobbying against the same legislation.

So Google is spending money to keep the congress from passing Privacy Laws, Microsoft is spending money to educate lawmakers so they will pass Privacy Laws.


Protecting privacy - good, protecting internet neutrality - good, requiring high levels of security for government systems - good.

This is where Microsoft was lobbying for the right things and even fighting back against Google that on the security issue has been trying to get government security requirements REDUCED so that their systems would be eligible for use by more agencies.

Google shamefully was successful in getting security and privacy requirements reduced so that some of Google's hosted services could be used in more agencies, it was easier to spend money on lobbying to get the requirements changed than to actually increase their security and privacy models on their servers. (Which is more than a bit scary that Google can literally QUERY all data stored by some government agencies now.)


Google and Apple have changed political sides in the past 7 years and they are not supporting things that are in the best interests of the general public.

Microsoft on the other hand is primarily supporting things that are for the general public. This is WHY Microsoft's PR person was calling out Google on these specific issues (go back and read the tweets about lobbying and transparency).

Microsoft are not angels, especially with Ballmer leading the company, as Gates has had harsh words for some things Ballmer initiated in the political system under the Microsoft banner and later stopped.


However to ignorantly deem all 'lobbying' as BAD or EVIL is NOT understanding how the system works.

Just because Delay and the K Street people exemplified how corrupt lobbying can be, does not mean that all lobbying has this hold on politicians or is there to purchase politicians.

There are well meaning scientists and think tanks that are nonprofit and provide 'information' to politicians all the time in the form of Lobbying that expect NOTHING in return but for their information to be considered.


A big problem is how easy it is to turn the tide of Internet opinion against *any* legislative action. There are two inescapable facts under this topic right now:

1) The vast majority of people will happily spend hours/days reading and posting *comments* about legislation, but will balk at reading the legislation itself.

2) The vast majority of people are extremely susceptible to buzz words and hyperbole. Paint a dark image of "Washington insiders" and "closed doors" and "government overreach" and "chilling effects" and people will eat it up.

In other words, any interest group can take any proposed regulation or legislation, cast some spin, and in two hours have Reddit convinced that it's "the next SOPA". Threads will reference blogs that reference more blogs, and public opinion will only have eyes for them, while any meaningful source (e.g., the actual text of the proposal) will be read by virtually no one.

People do not want to be informed. They want to be angry, and they want to feel their anger is justified.

FISKER_Q said,
Google is lobbying for a less dumb patent system, that seems like a good thing to me.

Of course if you're saying it's only self-serving, then that is of course true, but there's no reason why serving yourself can't serve others at the same time


Wrong. Microsoft is lobbying for a better patent system. Google is lobbying for preferential treatment and exclusive regulatory exemptions...

FISKER_Q said,
I'm not sure what you're specifically talking about here, but really sensitive government data just isn't for the cloud.

Basically the main issue i hear is that governments want stringent controls with how and where data is placed, which is just counter-intuitive to the entire cloud concept.

I don't really think that's a model upon which Google can improve, unless we move away from cloud hosting.


There are secure cloud options, and then there's Google... The cloud isn't just inherently insecure...

Joshie said,

A big problem is how easy it is to turn the tide of Internet opinion against *any* legislative action. There are two inescapable facts under this topic right now:

1) The vast majority of people will happily spend hours/days reading and posting *comments* about legislation, but will balk at reading the legislation itself.

2) The vast majority of people are extremely susceptible to buzz words and hyperbole. Paint a dark image of "Washington insiders" and "closed doors" and "government overreach" and "chilling effects" and people will eat it up.

In other words, any interest group can take any proposed regulation or legislation, cast some spin, and in two hours have Reddit convinced that it's "the next SOPA". Threads will reference blogs that reference more blogs, and public opinion will only have eyes for them, while any meaningful source (e.g., the actual text of the proposal) will be read by virtually no one.

People do not want to be informed. They want to be angry, and they want to feel their anger is justified.


You're absolutely right. From my experience, there is a large population that just doesn't want to know. Heck, they seem to completely refuse to read anything but the headlines! They're perfectly happy being uninformed and hearing what they WANT to hear, even if it's incorrect.

And that's one of my biggest complaints about Democrats in Washington, because they think it's perfectly acceptable to vote on something they have never read or had intention of reading...

Not very sure if the tweet count just remain 0 since it is protected. But also since it is protected, we reply are we waiting for? Not as if we can read?

Edit: Just tried. Not suppose to be 0. So if so, we reply are we waiting since this account is totally just for show?

Sorry for not checking my English. I mean since it is 0 tweets it is most likely inactive account or a account just for show. What reply are we waiting for anyway. The person might not even see the tweet anyway.