Googles Blogging Chutzpah

 
 
By Evan Schuman  |  Posted 2007-07-06
 
 
 

Googles Blogging Chutzpah


When red-hot startups grow quickly, they tend to grow until they hit their head on the ceiling.

This is that awkward stage where the company starts making inexplicable decisions. This isnt Burn Rate, that ability to go through tons of money very quickly. Rather, lets call this the Burn Up and Implode Rate.

The pattern is all too familiar. The aggressive company that was positively anal about its focus starts branching out into unexpected areas, perhaps making a few ultra-high-pricetag acquisitions. As has been said many times, when these unorthodox decisions start getting made, the question shouldnt be, "Who came up with that idea?" It should be, "Who approved it?"

At this late stage of development, I would think Google would have grown beyond such a stage. But two recent incidents make me start to wonder if the search giants legendary discipline hasnt started to soften.

First, there was the decision to stage a party last month at eBays huge annual convention, a party designed to get eBays customers to not use eBays services for E-Commerce and to instead use Googles. Did I mention that eBay was—at the time—a huge Google customer?

eBay retaliated by yanking all of its ads and Google quickly canceled its party. eBay later said they would reinstate some of the ads. Maybe. If Google behaved themselves … and washed their cars … with toothbrushes.

It was an odd move, but one that could be dismissed as an anomaly, probably nothing more than an unchecked bit of excessive enthusiasm.

But then this month, one of Googles new corporate blogs posted this item about the new Michael Moore film, "Sicko". The post was written by a Google insider named Lauren Turner, whom the New York Times described as "a Health Account Planner at Google."

Turner tore into Moore and Sicko quite aggressively, saying, "Moore attacks health insurers, health providers and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst. Moores film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcares interest in patient well-being and care."

But the problem was not her position per se. It was that Googles senior people were apparently surprised that a strongly-worded opinion on an official Google blog, bylined by someone who appears to be a Google employee and clearly written as the voice of Google could somehow—gasp!—be interpreted as Googles position.

Click here to read about the many small businesses that rely on Googles goodwill in order to survive.

If youre unsure if it was written as the voice of Google, consider the line, "If youre interested in learning more about issue management campaigns or about how we can help your company better connect its assets online, e-mail us." Its the "us" that is the killer phrasing.

There are ways around this problem. But if a company is going to have an official blog and use employees to blog, then, yes, to be surprised that its the company view is to raise a lot of uncomfortable questions.

Google itself conceded that it wasnt watching the ball on this one, with another post where Google Product Manager Missy Krasner said bluntly, "We blew it."

Next Page: Committing blog sins.

Committing Blog Sins


I dont want to address the substance of the initial insurance company defense, at least not while I have five claims for my family pending review.

But there was a blog sin committed here. The only thing a blog has going for it is credibility. When readers see a corporate blog on health care or anything else to be a good place for insight, news and analysis that is valuable and difficult to find elsewhere, theyll come, read and participate. The corporation will get the benefit and will, over time, develop a group of its customers and prospects to talk with.

The moment readers see the blog as a commercial, theyll abandon it and likely not return for quite some time.

The sin here was not that Googles blogger expressed her opinion. The sin was that she forgot that the cardinal rule of being a blogger—corporate or otherwise—is to inform and add insight. To the extent that the blog is supposed to be about health advertising, her opinions about the relative effectiveness of one form of advertising over another (for example: "text ads are ultra powerful and animation ads are a waste of money") would be welcomed.

As a writer, I can blog about retail technology and offer my opinion about the effectiveness of various database tactics without anyone getting too upset. But if I share my opinion about abortion rights or same sex marriage, I deserve to get slammed. Its not the opinion that is the problem. Its whether that opinion is within the jurisdiction of that blogger. In other words, is it what the audience expects and wants?

Im afraid that some people will take the wrong lesson from this incident and think that Turner would have escaped trouble had she taken the opposite view.

The other problem with this posting was that it sounded like the blogger was pandering to her readers, with such comments as, "Or, as is often common, the media may use an isolated, heartbreaking, or sensationalist story to paint a picture of health care as a whole. With all the coverage, its a shame no one focuses on the industrys numerous prescription programs, charity services and philanthropy efforts."

In a documentary looking at whether Americans are getting medical treatment, the filmmaker was supposed to somehow work in the tax-deductible contributions the insurance companies made?

But Im being pulled into the substance of the original comments. I admit it. Im weak. The true point is not that youre the best buddy of the reader. Youre there to inform them and help put, in this case, advertising issues into context. The blogger failed to do that.

The reason pandering is a blog sin is that it kills credibility. The point of the post was that insurance companies should buy lots of Google ads to fight the film.

Im not sure if I admire the honesty (blogging Chutzpah?) more than I am taken aback by the blatant sales pitch. She clearly wasnt trying to fool anyone, but I think a blog on advertising needs to go out of its way to avoid recommending itself as the solution to anything.

Retail Center Editor Evan Schuman has tracked high-tech issues since 1987, has been opinionated long before that and doesnt plan to stop any time soon. He can be reached at Evan_Schuman@ziffdavis.com.

To read earlier retail technology opinion columns from Evan Schuman, please click here.

Check out eWEEK.coms for the latest news, views and analysis on enterprise search technology.

Rocket Fuel