|
Google’s Bad PR Day
By Jim Hedger, StepForth News Editor, StepForth Placement Inc.
August 9, 2005
» Click here for  PDF &  Word
Versions
Three bad headlines sitting on the fence,
One fell over and made them look dense,
Another fell over and they started to spin,
and that ’s where the power of media comes in.
It must have been a Monday.
Google has had another bad day on the public relations front yesterday.
Three stories about Google made search marketing headlines which, for a
company as interesting and innovative as Google is fairly typical. Yesterday’s
headlines however were a headache for Google and should act as a heads up
for Google’s executive team. Columns appearing in both the mainstream
and the technical press pointed to three major PR blunders, each of which
could be considered a fairly significant scandal in its own right.
The first and possibly most damaging item comes in the form of a directive
issued to Google employees banning them from speaking with representatives
of one of the Internet’s most popular news services, C-Net news. The
story became active across the Internet late Friday afternoon and is spreading
like a bad PR plague, appearing in mainstream publications such as The
New York Times and CNNMoney.
The issue started innocently enough back on July 14 when CNet reporter
Elinor Mills wrote a three
page story about personal information collected
and displayed by Google. In the story, she used Google CEO Eric Schmidt
as her active example dredging up a great deal of non-work related information
including Schmidt’s income, his neighbourhood, his political affiliation,
the fact that Schmidt attends Burning Man Festivals and that he and his
wife once danced to Elton John performing Benny and the Jets live at an
Al Gore fundraiser five years ago. The piece also mentions the dozen or
so other ways Google collects private information about its users noting
fears that what was once considered private might somehow become very public.
The publication of such information, all of which was found using the Google
search engine elicited a swift and not so subtle reaction from the search
firm’s PR department. According to a piece written on August
4 by
the same author at CNet, “Google representatives have instituted a
policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response
to privacy issues raised by a previous
story.”
Google has not confirmed the story but at the same time, it has not denied
it either. In response to seven questions posed by email from StepForth
News;
1. Is there a ban on providing information to CNET news?
2. What is the purpose of such a ban?
3. Does Google appreciate such a ban might cause an info-chill for other
journalists? Is that the point?
4. Does Google have any comment on privacy issues raised by the original
article?
5. Will this experience move Google to take the privacy of the individual
more seriously in the future?
6. Should we expect Google to take similar actions against other journalists
in the future?
Google’s PR head David Krane politely responded, “Thanks for
the note. We’ll decline comment”.
The situation between Google and CNet is very troubling. Assuming that
the report of a ban is correct, the only possible purpose could be to punish
the entire CNet news team and send an implied threat to other journalists.
Threatening writers is rarely seen as a good thing, especially when the
firm issuing the threat happens to be the world’s most popular information
source, one that obviously holds a great deal of information about its users
as well as its staff. In this case, no news is definitely not good news.
Another headline yesterday noted that Google has issued an update for its
popular toolbar. In this update, the controversial AutoLink feature of the
toolbar is automatically enabled. AutoLink was included in the third version
of the toolbar. When active, AutoLink adds links to a document if content
in that document triggers it. Currently limited to proving links to FedEx
(package tracking numbers), Amazon.Com (triggered when a book title or ISBN
is mentioned), Google Maps (when street addresses are placed on a document),
and vehicle histories (when a vehicle ID number is entered), AutoLink actively
alters web documents, regardless of who created them. While the feature
is said to assist Google users, the bottom line is that it will force content
change on documents created, for the most part, by private webmasters.
Earlier this year, the inclusion of AutoLink caused a huge stir and Google
promised the feature would be inactive unless opened by individual users.
On March 3, Google’s Consumer Products Director, Marissa Mayer said
in an interview with the Washington
Post, "We think it's important
to see what the publisher intended first. It is a user-elected option, meaning
if you are using AutoLink, it is because you knew about it and decided to
click that button up at the top of your browser." Yesterday, Google
issued the upgrade with Autolink automatically enabled. Either Ms. Mayer
was misinformed at the time or Ms. Mayer was misinforming Google users.
A third headline yesterday led to an article about the troubles Google’s
former National Sales Director, Christina Elwell faced when she told her
former employer she was pregnant with quadruplets and coping with medical
issues arising from the pregnancy. Just a few months earlier, Ms. Elwell
was singled out for praise at a national sales meeting as a strong contributor,
one of the people who made last year’s IPO successful. After telling
her supervisor she was pregnant, Ms. Elwell was informed her position was
terminated and offered a lesser role (which was eventually filled by someone
else).
In a lawsuit filed against Google last week in a Manhattan federal court,
Ms. Elwell states, “… her career was derailed by a series of
demotions and a firing,” and that she was, “… branded
a human resources nightmare by supervisor Timothy Armstrong, VP of National
Sales.” The suit charges Google and Mr. Armstrong with employment
discrimination, retaliation, violation of state human rights law, and infliction
of emotional distress. Google spokesperson Steve Langdon told the New York
NewsDay, "The lawsuit against Google and Tim Armstrong is without merit
and we will defend vigorously against it. The NewsDay piece also quotes
Mr. Langdon saying, “Google has exceptional support benefits for employees
who need to balance work with family, including generous benefits for expectant
and new mothers.”
It is important to note this case has not yet been heard in court and Ms.
Elwell’s allegations may be proven to be without merit. The story
itself is out there though and it is generating a fair degree of interest.
If Google is lucky, these things really do come in threes. Any one of the
three issues would be a PR-nightmare for most firms. To complicate matters,
Google might not be the top-dog much longer, at least not based on size.
Another headline made its way into the public realm late last night. It
seems Google’s largest rival, Yahoo! has been quietly expanding its
database of spidered sites. It now claims to be over twice the size of Google’s
containing over 19-billion unique documents, approximately 11-billion more
than Google says it holds.
Hopefully, yesterday’s news, combined with the Search Engine Strategies
Conference being held just down the road from the GooglePlex will act as
a head’s up for Google’s management. Problems like these don’t
just go away though as Microsoft has aptly proven, they can be managed if
one’s ship is large enough to weather stormy seas. It is however highly
unlikely Google will emerge from this year with their “do-no-evil” reputation
intact.
BACK to
the StepForth Search Engine News
|
