Taking the analysis of Microsoft’s Xbox Live service further, I believe that, as with virtually any company, the importance of an organization having good relationships with its stakeholders is significant. I think it is safe to say that in case of Microsoft their main stakeholder are customers – the people who purchase their products and in effect greatly contribute to their worldwide success. It is therefore evident that as a company, their main focus should be maintaining positive relationship with the stakeholders.
Being in the top ten of most reputable companies as I have mentioned in my previous post, Microsoft does an outstanding job with keeping their customers happy and maintaining positive relationship with them. This is done e.g. by continuously monitoring various internet forums, gathering and analyzing customers’ feedback, which is perhaps the most significant thing for Microsoft in terms of relationship management since it is important to know the stakeholder’s needs, expectations and requirements. This feedback is then used to constantly improve the quality of their service – in case of Xbox Live this would be various Dashboard updates ('Dashboard' is essentially Xbox 360’s main menu) which implement new features that enhance peoples’ entertainment while using their product.
Another good example of how well Microsoft uses its stakeholders’ feedback to maintain positive relationship would be their Xbox Preview Program. When Microsoft is developing either a new update or designing a new gaming peripheral, they choose some of their most valued and loyal customers and invite them to their preview program. This allows the customers to see the fruit of their labor before anyone else has the chance to and they can test it, evaluate it and send their feedback to Microsoft, which is of course used to further improve the product still in development phase. When I first heard about it I thought it was an amazing idea and a great example of ‘win-win’ outcome – valued customers get the new product free of charge before everyone else and in return Microsoft gets their product tested and evaluated before a particular project is signed-off and hits retail. Hence, this is a good example of covenantal relationship, which according to Jahansoozi is “based upon collaboration and cooperation for the common good, with the ‘win-win’ outcome in mind” (Jahansoozi 2007).
Answering the homework question – I believe the biggest challenge in case of this particular company is trying to keep happy as many people as possible, which of course is not easy at all for a worldwide company whose target are many different people from different cultures, with different opinions and expectations. However, as the aforementioned ranking shows – Microsoft seems to be successfully fulfilling the expectations and needs of majority of its stakeholders. This, in effect makes them a highly reputable company and good reputation is helpful in a lot of ways – it significantly affects the ability to move more Stock Keeping Units (SKU’s) off the shop shelves and it also improves the chances of new customers choosing their company instead of the competition. Even the little things help, e.g. the knowledge that Microsoft has the most responsive customer support service on Twitter – this can mean a lot to stakeholders who expect the best customer service, should something go wrong.
Summarizing, Microsoft certainly is a highly reputable company, able to successfully manage the stakeholder relationships. This is precisely why they have been winning the ‘home entertainment race’ on the game consoles worldwide market for the past couple of years, leaving their competition (Sony and Nintendo) with questions such as “how are they doing this?” and “what are we doing wrong?”. As for the answer to these questions – I might be wrong but it appears that appropriate, positive stakeholder relationships are the key to success.
References:
Jahansoozi, J. (2007) Organization–public relationships: An exploration of the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group. Public Relations Review 33, pp. 398–406.
No comments:
Post a Comment