Skip to main content

Culture Eats Acquisition For Lunch: Why Microsoft + Yammer Was Doomed

"Hey little sister, what have you done?
Hey little sister, who's the only one?
Hey little sister, who's your superman?
Hey little sister, who's the one you want?
Hey little sister, shotgun
"It's a nice day to start again
It's a nice day for a white wedding
It's a nice day to start again."
- Billy Idol, "White Wedding"
Anyone who's wasted months of their lives emailing documents back and forth with "track changes" knows that enterprise collaboration software is a no-brainer.
Whether you're talking about social networking, document sharing, videoconferencing, project management or some combination of all of these, the days are long gone when you could sit isolated in the back of your office and focus on "your work" all day.
How big is this market, however ill-defined? One forecast says "$5.9 billion by the end of 2018," another "$6.2 billion by 2019, representing a 13.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the 2014-2019 period."
Collaboration is undoubtedly "the next big thing," so much so that one day we will look back and not understand how we ever did without it. Back in 2012, though, only a few companies had seriously gained traction, and one of them was Yammer. So it was predictable that Microsoft - the largest software company in the world - with its dorky Sharepoint tool that remains unpopular among users - would seek to buy it. Indeed in June of that year, the purchase went through for a staggering $1.2 billion.
After which Microsoft proceeded to kill it. Initially Yammer CEO David Sacks stayed on after the purchase, but departed in 2014 after being more or less ignored. As the Wall Street Journal reported:
"Sacks, who was Yammer’s CEO when Microsoft purchased the company in 2012 for $1.2 billion, had been an outspoken advocate for new tools to make workers more collaborative and efficient...Sacks went to work at Microsoft after the acquisition, but people familiar with the company said he hasn’t been involved much in operations at Yammer or Microsoft."
On January 22, 2016, the business collaboration community was shocked to learn that Microsoft has apparently entirely eliminated the entire Yammer Customer Success team. (Note that Microsoft has yet to confirm the news; It is based on status updates in Twitter and on the Yammer IT Pro Network.)
Meaning that now, when you get the product, you're on your own.
One industry writer reacted furiously. "These are the people whose blood, sweat and tears helped companies like yours turn collaboration into a success at your company," wrote Carrie Basham Young at, which broke the story.
Others shared Young's opinion, even before the news broke. As Dennis Pearce wrote on Twitter: "Microsoft is doing a good enough job of killing Yammer without any external help."
For her part, Young expressed disillusionment with Microsoft's betrayal of its initially promising approach to the acquisition, noting that in the beginning "Microsoft invested in the Yammer product as well as the team that built key relationships with its best customers [the CSMs]".
What went wrong here? 
From the very beginning, analysts were concerned that Microsoft had made a mistake by straying from its "core businesses," such as Windows. For another thing, others had already made inroads into the market. In a particularly stinging comment, Trip Chowdhry, an analyst at Global Equities Research, said, "Microsoft is too late to the social party....Imitation is not a strategy."
But in my view, the real problem has to do with culture, which is ultimately reducible to brand. Deloitte Consulting has published a short guide to the specific issue of cultural integration after the M&A, but even had Microsoft followed that guide the problem remains unaltered.
Which is: One company can't marry another company unless the two cultures are compatible from the get-go. "Mergers Fail More Often Than Marriages," reported CNN more than five years ago, citing statistics that are nothing short of shocking when you consider the cost.
"Divorce rates vary according to country, educational levels and income, but generally hover between 40 percent and 50 percent in North America and Europe. Conversely, a 2004 study by Bain & Company found that 70 percent of mergers failed to increase shareholder value. More recently, a 2007 study by Hay Group and the Sorbonne found that more than 90 percent of mergers in Europe fail to reach financial goals.
It seems that while we talk a great deal about the importance of corporate culture, most companies don't put their money where their mouths are. What should happen is significant due diligence before a merger or acquisition ever takes place - to see if the two cultures can live together productively.
Instead, what we see is the deeply misguided and costly notion that you can buy your way to best fit. It doesn't work on that TV show "Married At First Sight," it and you can't buy your way to a good corporate marriage in real life.
No matter how sexy the target looks, it's brand values that make for a lasting partnership.
Copyright 2015 Dannielle Blumenthal, Ph.D. Dr. Blumenthal is founder and president of BrandSuccess, a corporate content provider, and co-founder of the brand thought leadership portal All Things Brand. The opinions expressed are her own and not those of any government agency or entity or the federal government as a whole. "Bride of Frankenstein" photo via Wikipedia.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …