Comments on: The elephant in the room: observations on the Google vs. Sicko incident http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident Cornelius Puschmann on corporate and institutional blogging, linguistics, open access and other things that interest him. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:40:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: The language of business, the language of blogs - CorpBlawg http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-85419 The language of business, the language of blogs - CorpBlawg Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:35:35 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-85419 [...] highly controlled, this is no longer the case in a networked world. A careful examination of the Google-Sicko story reveals a case of audience underfitting, i.e. a company employee addressing a specific audience but [...] [...] highly controlled, this is no longer the case in a networked world. A careful examination of the Google-Sicko story reveals a case of audience underfitting, i.e. a company employee addressing a specific audience but [...]

]]> By: Cornelius http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-41255 Cornelius Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:17:31 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-41255 I agree, but of course the dynamics at a company can make it hard to take responsibility when you have been given an explicit assignment. The decisive issue is that people will perceive what you publish under your name as your words and hold you accountable. I agree, but of course the dynamics at a company can make it hard to take responsibility when you have been given an explicit assignment. The decisive issue is that people will perceive what you publish under your name as your words and hold you accountable.

]]> By: Lilia Efimova http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-41252 Lilia Efimova Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:11:31 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-41252 For me it's interesting to see the "blame the superior" part of it. For me, writing in public from my own name brings ultimate personal responsibility for what I say, regardless to how company or my boss (do not) try to influence me. Thinking also of Microsoft's "don't be stupid" part of their blogging "policy" essentially saying that every blogger should think at the first place. For me it’s interesting to see the “blame the superior” part of it. For me, writing in public from my own name brings ultimate personal responsibility for what I say, regardless to how company or my boss (do not) try to influence me.

Thinking also of Microsoft’s “don’t be stupid” part of their blogging “policy” essentially saying that every blogger should think at the first place.

]]> By: JNJ BTW » Blog Archive » …And Speaking of Work http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37965 JNJ BTW » Blog Archive » …And Speaking of Work Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:41:53 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37965 [...] Puschmann over at CorpBlawg had an interesting analysis of the recent kerfuffle surrounding a blog entry on Google Health soliciting customers. Among other [...] [...] Puschmann over at CorpBlawg had an interesting analysis of the recent kerfuffle surrounding a blog entry on Google Health soliciting customers. Among other [...]

]]> By: Post Google-Sicko blamefest - CorpBlawg http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37904 Post Google-Sicko blamefest - CorpBlawg Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:52:49 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37904 [...] decided to take this long comment from my previous post on the Google-Sicko incident and republish it here, mainly because comments tend to be overlooked [...] [...] decided to take this long comment from my previous post on the Google-Sicko incident and republish it here, mainly because comments tend to be overlooked [...]

]]> By: Cornelius http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37737 Cornelius Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:12:46 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37737 Note: "Get with the program: you work for an advertising platform company. Your free healthcare and free lunch come from advertising revenue. Wake up and smell the words “public company.” Google isn’t a start-up anymore." True, it certainly isn't, but it's a company that has a lot to loose in terms of image. The question is: why would they want to even try appeal to pharma companies in this way? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that they want the ad revenue, but don't they get that anyway, without the sleazy, reputation-damaging sales pitch? I'm not saying that they aren't about a profit, but this whole story seems anything but beneficial to their bottom line, evil or no evil. Note:

“Get with the program: you work for an advertising platform company. Your free healthcare and free lunch come from advertising revenue. Wake up and smell the words “public company.” Google isn’t a start-up anymore.”

True, it certainly isn’t, but it’s a company that has a lot to loose in terms of image. The question is: why would they want to even try appeal to pharma companies in this way? Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand that they want the ad revenue, but don’t they get that anyway, without the sleazy, reputation-damaging sales pitch? I’m not saying that they aren’t about a profit, but this whole story seems anything but beneficial to their bottom line, evil or no evil.

]]> By: Cornelius http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37735 Cornelius Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:07:41 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37735 Thanks for your interesting comment. It makes perfect sense to me that the problems that have arisen can't really be blamed purely on Mrs. Turner, but that those who gave the her the assignment and approved it dropped the ball. I still think there's a stylistic problem there (well, or an "audience design" one - it's a sales pitch that reached the wrong people), but you are right that it isn't exactly fair from her point of view. Strange though, communication is usually very well handled at Google and they excel at not sounding like marketers. This is clearly an exception. Thanks for your interesting comment. It makes perfect sense to me that the problems that have arisen can’t really be blamed purely on Mrs. Turner, but that those who gave the her the assignment and approved it dropped the ball. I still think there’s a stylistic problem there (well, or an “audience design” one - it’s a sales pitch that reached the wrong people), but you are right that it isn’t exactly fair from her point of view.
Strange though, communication is usually very well handled at Google and they excel at not sounding like marketers. This is clearly an exception.

]]> By: Mike G. http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37699 Mike G. Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:25:39 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37699 A few points: 1. Google clearly has not communicated to its employees how to blog. Multiple people were involved in approving the blog entry, some senior on the PR team. They messed up, not Turner. The entry was an *assignment.* From what I know, the messaging to Turner was to speak to healthcare advertisers. It was a sales pitch. Who even knows if the message was Turner's view. It could easily not be. Remember, it was a sales pitch assignment. Perhaps the advertising teams should not be pitching on blogs, but that does not make it Turner's responsibility to decide that. Seems like a more senior problem. As for her second post, it was obviously crafted by PR. It's not like it just appeared on a Sunday morning at 9am because she thought, hey, I'd like to get up early on a weekend. Advertising as democratic...sounds like something straight from PR. I'd love to know who's responsible for reviewing all the blogs. I wonder why this person is not at the center of the storm. Does anyone know who was ultimately responsible for approving the post? 2. What's the matter with letting healthcare companies promote their prescription assistance programs and philanthropic efforts? Personally, I'd like to hear more about them. What's funny is that Turner's group does not serve health insurance companies. Another group, one that serves all kinds of insurance companies, serves that part of the industry. This blog was intended for pharmaceutical advertising readers. 3. Raph Levien, I hear you're pretty lacking in the professionalism department. I heard you crossed a number of lines within Google by slandering this girl in a public forum. Ever heard of "Do no evil"? Hypocrisy at its best. I hope Google is slapping your hand pretty hard because it sounds like you really beat up this girl. The difference is: she endured slander due to an assignment from her team, approved by senior people and you just jumped on her without knowing the whole story. Shame on you. Get with the program: you work for an advertising platform company. Your free healthcare and free lunch come from advertising revenue. Wake up and smell the words "public company." Google isn't a start-up anymore. I don't work for Google, but if I did and had seen the things you were writing, I would have started asking for *your* resignation. Poor form, man. Poor form. A few points:

1. Google clearly has not communicated to its employees how to blog. Multiple people were involved in approving the blog entry, some senior on the PR team. They messed up, not Turner. The entry was an *assignment.* From what I know, the messaging to Turner was to speak to healthcare advertisers. It was a sales pitch. Who even knows if the message was Turner’s view. It could easily not be. Remember, it was a sales pitch assignment. Perhaps the advertising teams should not be pitching on blogs, but that does not make it Turner’s responsibility to decide that. Seems like a more senior problem. As for her second post, it was obviously crafted by PR. It’s not like it just appeared on a Sunday morning at 9am because she thought, hey, I’d like to get up early on a weekend. Advertising as democratic…sounds like something straight from PR.

I’d love to know who’s responsible for reviewing all the blogs. I wonder why this person is not at the center of the storm. Does anyone know who was ultimately responsible for approving the post?

2. What’s the matter with letting healthcare companies promote their prescription assistance programs and philanthropic efforts? Personally, I’d like to hear more about them. What’s funny is that Turner’s group does not serve health insurance companies. Another group, one that serves all kinds of insurance companies, serves that part of the industry. This blog was intended for pharmaceutical advertising readers.

3. Raph Levien, I hear you’re pretty lacking in the professionalism department. I heard you crossed a number of lines within Google by slandering this girl in a public forum. Ever heard of “Do no evil”? Hypocrisy at its best. I hope Google is slapping your hand pretty hard because it sounds like you really beat up this girl. The difference is: she endured slander due to an assignment from her team, approved by senior people and you just jumped on her without knowing the whole story. Shame on you. Get with the program: you work for an advertising platform company. Your free healthcare and free lunch come from advertising revenue. Wake up and smell the words “public company.” Google isn’t a start-up anymore.

I don’t work for Google, but if I did and had seen the things you were writing, I would have started asking for *your* resignation. Poor form, man. Poor form.

]]> By: More on healthblogging: Google, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline - CorpBlawg http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37343 More on healthblogging: Google, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline - CorpBlawg Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:23:51 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37343 [...] - Over at oreilly.com, Nat Torkington has an interesting post up about the Lauren Turner/Google incident. [...] [...] - Over at oreilly.com, Nat Torkington has an interesting post up about the Lauren Turner/Google incident. [...]

]]> By: Cornelius http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37136 Cornelius Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:04:47 +0000 http://corpblawg.ynada.com/2007/07/09/the-elephant-in-the-room-observations-on-the-google-vs-sicko-incident#comment-37136 I've just read an interesting comment by Debbie Weil (http://www.blogwriteforceos.com/blogwrite/2007/07/corporate-blogg.html) regarding the incident and thought I'd point to it here. Debbie sees the problem more in the realm of "partisan politics" - an interesting fact that hadn't really occured to me. My view was that the problems of the U.S. health care system were unlikely to be regarded as a partisan issue, simply because most Americans seem to agree that there are in fact problems. The critical pieces I have read so far focus not so much on Google "taking sides", but on the extremely transparent attempt of Mrs. Turner to schmooze with potential clients using Sicko as the hook for doing so. Is it a "view" or a sales pitch? The latter, I'd say. I’ve just read an interesting comment by Debbie Weil (http://www.blogwriteforceos.com/blogwrite/2007/07/corporate-blogg.html) regarding the incident and thought I’d point to it here. Debbie sees the problem more in the realm of “partisan politics” - an interesting fact that hadn’t really occured to me. My view was that the problems of the U.S. health care system were unlikely to be regarded as a partisan issue, simply because most Americans seem to agree that there are in fact problems.

The critical pieces I have read so far focus not so much on Google “taking sides”, but on the extremely transparent attempt of Mrs. Turner to schmooze with potential clients using Sicko as the hook for doing so.
Is it a “view” or a sales pitch? The latter, I’d say.

]]>