Google doodle

[WayneLigon]

It's their money and reputation on the line so they should do as they wish within the law, but be aware that there might be consequences associated with their choices. Some companies might be fine with taking a hit to the bottom line in order to stand up for what they believe in, which might be better than slavishly pandering to opinion polls so as to net the largest possible share of a market.

* By 'the company', I mean that group of people that really wield power and influence within the company. Most rank-and-file employees probably should not expect that the place they work for will perfectly merge with everyone's likes and dislikes - that's impossible. At the same time, they should make known their displeasure. It can have an effect, as some of the Marketing people might well view the employees as a viable cross section of their customer base. If a significant number of employees oppose Statement X, it's probably likely that most Americans might feel the same way.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I dunno. Is that any different to any other company policy or product that individual employees disapprove of? Companies make decisions all the time, and every employee doesn't have to agree with every decision.

It's different in the fact that it has no bearing on the company's operations. This isn't deciding how to best set compensation guidelines or which vendor to use for whatever upcoming project there may be, it's simply statement - something one could argue that a corporation has no business making.

As noted before, there's a whole lot of decisions the company makes that have impact on the world - where/from whom you get your supplies, where/how the work gets done, what benefits get offered to which employees, and so on. All of these have ethical implications, and the guy in the mailroom doesn't usually have a say in those, either.

Corporations are not democracies, generally. Only some of the employees get to set policy. Whether it is fair or not, it is required for efficient operation of the business concern.

What is unfair is blaming the guy in the mailroom for a decision he had no part in.

But all too often we see that mailroom guy as Google. That's my point. 'The company' puts a decision made by a few on the heads of many that had nothing to do with it.

Do you also apply this to Intel's decision to go for "conflict free minerals"? That's a political statement to. One that probably had an impact on the bottom line. What about every advertisement ever? Remember that big ol' flap because Cheerio's had a commercial with a bi-racial girl? Or Coca-Cola's recent upset because they had America the Beautiful sung in different languages? How would the marketing department ever function if they caved to your idea of "fairness" towards the employees?

And where would that lead the company anyway? If the executive leadership wants to continue to have the company behave in a way they view as moral, but they have to make sure they're "fair" to their employees, now they have to have an idealogical test before they hire anyone?

I mean hell, Google annually gives away something like $100,000,000 (well, according to their own website anyway) in grants. I'm pretty confident that not everyone at Google is going to agree with all the recipients. And if you're asking them to wait for some sort of consensus among their employees, or even a majority, that's gonna take a while with 50000 employees. So either they do no giving, or they shut down operations for at least a few days as everyone sits down to research the background of each and every possible grant recipient.

To hell with fair, being "fair" doesn't sound terribly workable.

Slow down, brah. I never said anything should be fair, all I said was that it wasn't.

 

[Umbran]

It's different in the fact that it has no bearing on the company's operations.

Public relations certainly do have a bearing on the company's operations.

 

[Morrus]

It's different in the fact that it has no bearing on the company's operations. This isn't deciding how to best set compensation guidelines or which vendor to use for whatever upcoming project there may be, it's simply statement - something one could argue that a corporation has no business making.

You could argue that a corporation has no business making, but that's certainly not an argument I would ever make or support. I disagree wholeheartedly with it - corporations say and do things for PR, political, or ethical reasons all the time. In the long run, when you are offered a job to work at a company, you're offered money in exchange for your labour, not a vote in how things work. For that, you need to buy shares (or get highly promoted).

I can see why you'd disagree, but I don't share your stance at all.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Public relations certainly do have a bearing on the company's operations.

Sure, but not quite the same as myriad other things - depending upon the company and what it does, of course. I don't think Google needs a lot of PR work.

You could argue that a corporation has no business making, but that's certainly not an argument I would ever make or support. I disagree wholeheartedly with it - corporations say and do things for PR, political, or ethical reasons all the time. In the long run, when you are offered a job to work at a company, you're offered money in exchange for your labour, not a vote in how things work. For that, you need to buy shares (or get highly promoted).

I can see why you'd disagree, but I don't share your stance at all.

I'm not really for or against it - which is why I created this thread. It got me thinking, is all, and I wanted to see how other people felt about it. It's become apparent that most don't come close to thinking about this the way I did at the moment I read the article.

For the record, I do believe that most things like this that a company would publicly align itself with are going to be positives. In this specific case, though, I could easily see how some to many people would think what Google did was wrong because of the subject - it's a divisive one (for the record, I'm pro-Google here all the way). Unfortunately my ability to explain this has been handicapped by my desire to follow the rules. We can't talk about the specifics cuz I'm pretty sure that'll lead down a road that we're not allowed to travel.

That said, my questions were posed as questions.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but not quite the same as myriad other things - depending upon the company and what it does, of course. I don't think Google needs a lot of PR work.

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.

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.

 

[billd91]

For the record, I do believe that most things like this that a company would publicly align itself with are going to be positives. In this specific case, though, I could easily see how some to many people would think what Google did was wrong because of the subject - it's a divisive one (for the record, I'm pro-Google here all the way).

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.

 

[Umbran]

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...

My cynical thought is that I would not expect a large company to weigh in on such matters until the writing was on the wall. I'm pretty sure Coke and Cherrios knew darned well their superbowl ads would generate more supporters than detractors.

So, while they help sway public opinion, that's mostly on the back side of the curve.

 

[EscherEnigma]

It's different in the fact that it has no bearing on the company's operations. This isn't deciding how to best set compensation guidelines or which vendor to use for whatever upcoming project there may be, it's simply statement - something one could argue that a corporation has no business making.

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.

 

[The_Silversword]

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