and the distribution of digital products.
Watchdog finds flaws in Microsoft’s Copilot ROI pitch
An advertising watchdog, the BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), has recommended that Microsoft alter its advertising for Copilot, citing concerns over productivity claims and potential branding confusion.
NAD reviewed Microsoft’s Copilot advertising and subsequently recommended the company discontinue or modify claims regarding the productivity benefits of Microsoft 365 Copilot. The watchdog also suggested that Microsoft more clearly disclose the limitations of its Business Chat feature.
Microsoft has asserted that Copilot provides productivity and return on investment (ROI) advantages for businesses, stating that “67%, 70%, and 75% of users say they are more productive” after using Copilot for a certain period. However, NAD stated, “NAD found that although the study demonstrates a perception of productivity, it does not provide a good fit for the objective claim at issue.” Consequently, NAD recommended that Microsoft either discontinue the claim or modify it to disclose the basis for the claim.
Copilot Vision rolls out for Windows users
In addition to the productivity advertising concerns, NAD indicated that Microsoft’s widespread use of the “Copilot” branding across various products, including Business Chat, could cause confusion among users. NAD stated, “NAD concluded, based on the context of the claims and universal use of the product description as ‘Copilot,‘ that consumers would not necessarily understand the differences.” NAD has recommended that Microsoft “modify its advertising to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material limitations related to how Business Chat assists users.”
Microsoft relaunched Copilot for business earlier this year with free AI chat and pay-as-you-go agents. Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat originated as Bing Chat Enterprise before being rebranded as Copilot. Business Chat, initially a chatbot in Teams, is now Business Chat for Microsoft 365 Copilot.
Microsoft has responded to NAD’s recommendations, stating that it disagrees with the conclusions but “will follow NAD’s recommendations for clarifying its claims.”