Search engine wars: Microsoft invites Google to "Bing It On"

Microsoft claims that people preferred its Bing search engine to Google by a margin of almost 2 to 1 in a test. The company's new "Bing It On" campaign aims to convince people that Bing's search results really are more relevant than Google's.

Microsoft says its Bing search engine delivers better search results than Google's search. Here, the web site offers users a blind test to see which they prefer.

Pretend, for a minute, that you're Microsoft. You've long claimed that people prefer your search engine, Bing, to Google's juggernaut. But only 15 percent of online searches are coming through Bing, while Google's got a massive two-thirds dominance of the market. Search habits, apparently, die hard. What to do?

How about a search engine version of the Pepsi challenge?

Microsoft is doing exactly that with the launch of the "Bing It On" campaign this week. The company claims that people preferred Bing over Google by a margin of almost 2 to 1 in an independent test, and it wants to prove that its search results really are more useful to the public. Head over to, and you'll be invited to compare side-by-side search results (for search strings of your own choosing, of course) and select the more relevant of the two without knowing which is which. Best of five searches wins.

The site doesn't give a running tally of the results of everyone's tests, but at least it's upfront about telling you which search engine you preferred after five rounds -- Microsoft apparently feels pretty strongly that people will actually choose Bing. Microsoft CMO Mike Nichols wrote in a company blog, "Our mission is to show people it’s time to break the 'Google habit,'" adding that "Bing has reached a quality level that will make it easy to switch."

So, how does Bing stack up? You'll want to test it out with your own search strings, but in our test Bing did manage to edge out Google, albeit barely. Bing's results for "Christian Science Monitor," for example, returned the paper's own page first (complete with section headers and the ability to search within the site), followed by recent stories, popular Monitor subsections, and the Monitor's Facebook and Tumblr pages. Google had the same top results, but missed the paper's top stories (opting instead to show a single Monitor cover story that had been reprinted by another media outlet earlier in the week). Pretty close, but overall the Bing page was slightly more useful.

This isn't the first time Microsoft has tried to use blind tests to encourage customers to change their allegiances. The company held a "Windows Phone Challenge" earlier this year, which began with a video of a Microsoft employee betting people $100 that his Windows phone was faster than their Android phone or iPhone. That campaign fizzled, but Microsoft clearly sees value in the blind-test method of product evangelism. And a little exposure for Bing certainly isn't a bad thing -- assuming its search results really do stack up against Google's.

Do you have a search engine preference? Have you had good experiences with Bing, Google, or something else? (Please don't say AltaVista.) Let us know in the comments section below.

To receive regular updates on how technology intersects daily life, follow us on Twitter @venturenaut.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Search engine wars: Microsoft invites Google to
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today