Post Google-Sicko blamefest
I’ve 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 and it may be interesting to some readers. Please note that I have no knowledge about the identity of “Mike G” and what he says about the way Google has dealt with this issue may be accurate or complete speculation (where are your sources, Mike?). Frankly, I have very mixed feelings about giving a public forum to anonymous voices (especially considering the kind of mudslinging involved) but the point made about the responsibility of senior staff at Google in regards to the incident is valid.
Just take this with a grain of salt.
And here are two short responses that I wrote after receiving “Mike’s” comment.
My comment number 1:
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.
My comment number 2:
(quote Mike G) “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.â€
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.
I should add that I don’t support any of the seemingly internal finger-pointing going on here (and obviously I am not affiliated with Google). It’s true that Turner has taken an awful lot of criticism for something that must have been approved by other people. On the other hand, if it has your name under (or above it) you are responsible for the content. Blogs are highly individual channels of communication and as long as you have a choice you should think twice before playing human shield for your company.
All that being said, let’s not overrate the whole issue. Given the attention span of the blogosphere, I’m confident no one will remember any of this a month from now.
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 [Cornelius: he is refering to the comment that Raph has left on my post], 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.