Google doodle

[Kramodlog]

I didnt even really realize that they were making a message about homosexuality, until I read this thread.

Drink less.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Needs? Who, outside of the boardroom, gets to decide what a company needs? Google's had their "don't be evil" pledge questioned of late. Seems to me that may lead to a desire to appear less evil.

The people the company makes its money from have a decent say in a lot of things, too.

Plus, in business, the world isn't always about "need". It is often about what will give improvement sufficient to justify the cost. The Google Doodle that sparked this discussion was probably dirt cheap, by Google's standards, but it got people talking. Same for the Cheerios and Coca-Cola ads for Superbowl game day. They weren't cheap by my personal standards, but for the audience reached per dollar spent, they were probably pretty successful.

My question is whether Google really needs people talking about it.

Divisive issues are, possibly, the most important issues to get involved in. Big corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and others help to sway public opinion because they have a lot of power (read: money) to present and frame the debate in public discourse. They'll generate supporters and detractors, to be certain, but one hopes that the morally superior side will eventually win out through that public debate.

They're also, you know, divisive - which is where the question comes in: Is it fair to the company's employees?

Prior to the Supreme Court striking down Prop 8 and DOMA last year, Google was already extending family coverage in their health insurance policy to the spouses/civil unions/domestic partners of their gay employees. They were also comping those gay employees the extra tax burden the IRS levied on them because they counted the spousal coverage as taxable income, rather then how they treated family coverage for the rest of the married population.

So if Google shouldn't be making statements, then I think the complex ones with implications on benefits packages, hiring practices, flipping off the IRS and so-on would be of much more concern then the ones that have no policy or procedure impacts.

Their little doodle? You're right, that's nothing. But if that's the straw that breaks the camel's back for someone, then that someone has very strange priorities.

Fair enough.

 

[Umbran]

The people the company makes its money from have a decent say in a lot of things, too.

They have a say in what company they will give their money to, sure. But their opinion doesn't reflect what the company needs, but what they want the company to need, or probably what they feel the company ought to have - which is not the same thing at all.

My question is whether Google really needs people talking about it.

In what sense of "they don't need it"? In the sense that you feel that people talking about it actually harm the company? In the sense that you feel that more people talking about it won't actually help them keep their market share or revenue? In the sense that you just don't feel they merit more public focus?

Google's a diverse business, but ultimately they will fall if people don't think of them as solid, with good features and products. If people stop using their name as a verb, "Just google it!", they lose market share. If enterprises stop moving their e-mail to Google, they lose market share, and so on.

In what way is people talking about them not in their best interests if that talk is largely positive?

 

[Zombie_Babies]

They have a say in what company they will give their money to, sure. But their opinion doesn't reflect what the company needs, but what they want the company to need, or probably what they feel the company ought to have - which is not the same thing at all.

They vote with their business. If a company does something that causes a loss of a significant amount of business, well, I'd say the people are telling that company what it needs.

A&E suspended that Duck guy because that's what they thought people wanted. The people, however, told A&E that that's not what they wanted. Result: DD is on the air.

In what sense of "they don't need it"? In the sense that you feel that people talking about it actually harm the company? In the sense that you feel that more people talking about it won't actually help them keep their market share or revenue? In the sense that you just don't feel they merit more public focus?

Google's a diverse business, but ultimately they will fall if people don't think of them as solid, with good features and products. If people stop using their name as a verb, "Just google it!", they lose market share. If enterprises stop moving their e-mail to Google, they lose market share, and so on.

In what way is people talking about them not in their best interests if that talk is largely positive?

Google didn't need a profile bump right now. They're doing pretty well, IIRC. Something like this is a risk as well. It's not definitely going to result in positive discussion. Enough people have negative feelings about this (see the DD example above) that any company making a statement like this runs a risk of alienating a substantial number of customers (or users, whatever). So if the explanation is for some good ink, I don't see a need - especially when you consider what they chose to run with and the potential for blowing up in their face that it has.

I don't think Google did it for the press anyway. I don't think they care.

 

[The_Silversword]

Drink less.

I dont think that would help, I mean its just rainbow colored olympic guys, Rainbows automatically mean homosexuality?

 

[Kramodlog]

That and Nyan Cats.

 

[Umbran]

Something like this is a risk as well. It's not definitely going to result in positive discussion. Enough people have negative feelings about this (see the DD example above) that any company making a statement like this runs a risk of alienating a substantial number of customers (or users, whatever).

You're right, for a big company, if it causes major Bad Feelings, that's a problem. So, I don't expect any big company to make such a statement unless/until they're pretty darned sure the result is overall positive for them. And who, of all companies, is apt to have the data, and data mining capabilities, to determine the likely outcome, if not Google? There is no bigger player in "Big Data", after all.

Honestly, I think the ads are less about the companies taking sides in the various culture wars, as them seeing the handwriting on the wall about who is going to win, in the long run. Yes, they'll lose some business from the losing side - but if they're a minority and shrinking, they're no longer a major concern for profits.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

You're right, for a big company, if it causes major Bad Feelings, that's a problem. So, I don't expect any big company to make such a statement unless/until they're pretty darned sure the result is overall positive for them. And who, of all companies, is apt to have the data, and data mining capabilities, to determine the likely outcome, if not Google? There is no bigger player in "Big Data", after all.

Well, if they looked at any data from the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle ...

I think what you said next is the most likely explanation, though:

Honestly, I think the ads are less about the companies taking sides in the various culture wars, as them seeing the handwriting on the wall about who is going to win, in the long run. Yes, they'll lose some business from the losing side - but if they're a minority and shrinking, they're no longer a major concern for profits.

Yeah, it certainly seems like the best decision would be to align yourself now because the end of this war is (hopefully) without doubt. Lose a few now to earn more later because of your early adoption.

 

[Umbran]

Well, if they looked at any data from the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle ...

Exactly. Look at the data. Duck Dynasty *lost 28% of their viewership*, comparing this season's premier with last season's.

Yeah, it certainly seems like the best decision would be to align yourself now because the end of this war is (hopefully) without doubt. Lose a few now to earn more later because of your early adoption.

Well, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the net change is positive for them, even right now.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Exactly. Look at the data. Duck Dynasty *lost 28% of their viewership*, comparing this season's premier with last season's.

And what percentage of viewers - and revenue generated by them - would A&E have lost if they bowed to the lesser pressure and canned the show? Oh yeah, 100%. It's obvious that more - or, at the least, enough - folks wanted to see those guys than didn't. They're still on the air.

And that said, ratings are a little more nuanced than you're presenting. Shows typically decline over time and a fair number of lost viewers may simply be due to that. Presenting the 28% loss as you did implies that this is all due to the flap caused by dood's comments. That's ... specious.

Well, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the net change is positive for them, even right now.

One can hope. I know I like it but the A&E thing has me wondering just how many folks do. At the same time, the NFL is in the news for something sort of related and depending upon what article you're reading, there's either a lot of good news (players and the union expressing support) or bad (scouts dropping draft rank because of the revelation). It's a complex world and assumptions here can be dangerous.

Meh, as far as you and I are concerned it's a positive for Google. I think we can both be happy with at least that.