# Google doodle



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 7, 2014)

Linky-dinky

First things first: This thread is _not _for discussion of the statement the doodle was meant to make.  We can't talk about that here so forget whether you're pro-rainbow or not.  

Ok, with that out of the way, here's why I posted this link: How do you feel about corporations taking stands like this (any stand at all - the article is just a handy example)?  Do you think it's fair to the company's employees to take a global position on something like this?  Do you think it reflects on the nation the company is based in in any way?  Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?

I don't know how I'd feel if the company I work for did something like this.  I mean, it gives money to charities like St Jude and ACA every year but I see that as different.  I mean, what if I didn't agree with what they told the world they obviously do?  Just who do people see that 'they' as?  It's interesting that Google did this but I have to wonder what exactly it means to their employees.


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 7, 2014)

Why mention employees and not the more obvious stakeholders: shareholders? For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks. For employees it is less obvious that money going to be charity could potentially be going to paying them higher wages. And in most cases it probably would not be. So unless you are losing out on higher wages due to your employers activism, how are you entitled to feel injured by their activist stance? You could quit. If you disagree with their politics, that is an option.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?



I'm all for not considering corporations as people and thus give them different rights and responsabilities than ordinary people. Google statement is not done during a electoral cycle, it does not incite hate/violence or is diffamatory, it does not misrepresent anything, I see no reason why this should be regulated.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 7, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> Why mention employees and not the more obvious stakeholders: shareholders? For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks. For employees it is less obvious that money going to be charity could potentially be going to paying them higher wages. And in most cases it probably would not be. So unless you are losing out on higher wages due to your employers activism, how are you entitled to feel injured by their activist stance? You could quit. If you disagree with their politics, that is an option.



Giving to charities is tax deductable, so it is not too bad for shareholders. Plus you get good PR.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> For shareholders the concern is more direct: money going to charitable causes is not going to their pocketbooks.




Charitable donations are tax deductions.  Sometimes, strategic use of such can lower the company's tax burden, and end up raising either their dividends or share price.  Plus, making charitable donations is, in effect, marketing.  "We do good things!" makes the public want to buy your products or services.

I'm guessing most major companies aren't losing their shareholders much with their charitable work.

But, to address the larger question in the OP:

Companies don't operate in a vacuum, they don't "just do business and make money".  What they do has impact on people who work for them, people in the supply chain, people who buy the products - all over the place.  So, whether or not they made a public statement, they take an effective stand o any number of things.  Better they do so thoughtfully and deliberately, rather than just by happenstance and not considering the repercussions of their actions.  And at that point, why not be public about it?

If I don't like the ethics of my employer, I start seeking other employment.  If I agree with their ethics, why should I not want them to be public about them?


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 8, 2014)

I actually rather wish charitable donations were _not_ tax deductible. I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just. There must be alternative viable mechanisms for determining where money from the Government should be allocated for charity. If nothing rested on the status of charitable donations then we would not be having case in Canada right now where the Canadian Revenue Agency is apparently going after seven environmental charities for "political activities" ; they did or are going to de-list them so they will no longer be eligible for collecting tax deductible donations. I am probably bending the rules of the forum a bit even by mentioning it so I would suggest anyone who wants to know what I am talking about just Google it. 

Also I suddenly think that we already had a discussion about charitable donations not that long ago here...


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 8, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> I actually rather wish charitable donations were _not_ tax deductible. I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just. There must be alternative viable mechanisms for determining where money from the Government should be allocated for charity. If nothing rested on the status of charitable donations then we would not be having case in Canada right now where the Canadian Revenue Agency is apparently going after seven environmental charities for "political activities" ; they did or are going to de-list them so they will no longer be eligible for collecting tax deductible donations. I am probably bending the rules of the forum a bit even by mentioning it so I would suggest anyone who wants to know what I am talking about just Google it.
> 
> Also I suddenly think that we already had a discussion about charitable donations not that long ago here...



I can relate to the sentiment. If people give to charities, it should its own reward. No need to have society reimburse you for it. That money is needed elsewhere.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> I understand why they did that in the first place but I am not convinced it is just.




I think it might be.  Let us consider a charity that does something the government might do - say... getting meals to lower-income senior citizens who need them.

Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?

If giving directly to the charity actually saves money, then reducing the tax burden to encourage it may actually be a financial win for the government.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2014)

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]







> Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?




Depends on how you measure efficiency.

Somewhat paradoxically, government welfare operations actually spend more of each dollar in their budget on the people they're meant to serve as opposed to administrative costs than most private charities do.  Economies of scale make that happen.  So do government wages.

For example:



> In fiscal year 2013, the federal government spent about $82.5 billion on SNAP.  About 92 percent went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food.  Of the remaining 8 percent, about 5 percent was used for state administrative costs, including eligibility determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities.  About 3 percent went for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country), and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.




(US Dept. of Agricultire report, 2013)

So, 8% of the entire SNAP (aka Food stamp program) goes to administration costs (and more than half of that is for reimbursing state-level administrative costs). Most charities are doing well if they only allocate 25% of their budget administrative costs.  Not only do they keep admin costs low, but the current US Ag estimate on SNAP fraud is between 2-3%.


Government welfare programs also tend to hit economic sectors private charities simply don't.

However, local private charities tend to be more "agile" and responsive.  They can adapt and adjust their practices in accord with local needs.  In contrast, a government agency might actually require a literal act of Congress to change a policy in the face of an unexpected need.


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 8, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Who is likely more *efficient* at administering the money for this task - the government, or a local charity?.




I do not think it is about who is more efficient with the money, though that is a closely related question. The tax deduction for charity is not really about spending money but rather allocating it. The question, really, is "Is it more efficacious for the government to allow citizens to choose which charities the government gives to by forking up the money initially, or would some alternative method of determining how the government allocates the same money (say, with a kind of rating system made up from aggregated taxpayer preferences) work better?" Whether the same charities would get roughly the same amount of money from the government without the tax deduction method of allocation is the real issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> The question, really, is "Is it more efficacious for the government to allow citizens to choose which charities the government gives to by forking up the money initially, or would some alternative method of determining how the government allocates the same money (say, with a kind of rating system made up from aggregated taxpayer preferences) work better?" Whether the same charities would get roughly the same amount of money from the government without the tax deduction method of allocation is the real issue.




We know that certain kinds of charities absolutely depend on direct or indierect government assistance.  Many artistic/quality of life programs- inner city arts programs, B&G Clubs, relatively new charities, etc.- report that their private donations fluctuate in proportion to the sums they get from government programs- the more the government gives, the more private parties do.  Some even report that withdrawal or big reductions of government funding utterly craters private donations because government funding acts like a "seal of approval" that a charity is legitimate.  So when government money dries up, the private donors scurry away.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 8, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Linky-dinky
> 
> First things first: This thread is _not _for discussion of the statement the doodle was meant to make. We can't talk about that here so forget whether you're pro-rainbow or not.
> 
> Ok, with that out of the way, here's why I posted this link: How do you feel about corporations taking stands like this (any stand at all - the article is just a handy example)?



I don't see a problem with it. 







> Do you think it's fair to the company's employees to take a global position on something like this?



Sure, why not? For the most part, Google attracts people that have similar interests and views. Then they mold them to fit the company vision. It's not as if Google keeps its social commentary secret. You know going in what Google, and other companies like it, are doing.







> Do you think it reflects on the nation the company is based in in any way?



I'm sure it can, but I doubt it is going to change someone's view on a nation. It's not as if some guy in Afghanistan is going to go "Eh, I used to like the U.S., but Google's support of gay rights (or whatever other topic) has changed my mind. They are an evil empire." More likely they will already have a negative view of a country and use this (or some other comment/action by a company) to support their view of said country. 







> Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?



Why? 



> I don't know how I'd feel if the company I work for did something like this. I mean, it gives money to charities like St Jude and ACA every year but I see that as different. I mean, what if I didn't agree with what they told the world they obviously do? Just who do people see that 'they' as? It's interesting that Google did this but I have to wonder what exactly it means to their employees.



Google, and companies like it hire people they can mold into a certain type of person. They also tend to attract a certain type of person. Chances are the employees at Google are all (or the large majority) behind this. Generally it is advised that you research a company you are interviewing with. You should know a bit about that company, and if yo find things that you don't like, don't apply with them. If they change during your tenure, you are free to leave.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 8, 2014)

I really don't understand the idea that a company should ever have an obligation to "stay neutral".  Neutrality in a power-imbalance situation always favors the oppressor, never the oppressed.  It's complicit complacency.

As such, I find pleas that any company should just "stay neutral" to be terribly dishonest.  If nothing else, the person making the plea is being dishonest with themself about what "neutrality" means in the real world.

That aside, I prefer dialogue to censorship.  I'd rather a company be upfront with what it supports.  That way I know whether I want to support _them_.  That goes both pro and con.  There are various companies that I won't do business with if I can avoid because I don't wish to support them.  Similarly, there are those I'll chose over their otherwise-equal competitors because they've taken actions to earn my favor.

Further, you have to remember that not all statements are explicit.  Google's doodle?  Explicit statement of support.  Coca-Cola being a sponsor of the Olympics?  Implicit statement of support.  Why should one statement be allowed but another frowned upon?


----------



## Tonguez (Feb 8, 2014)

​Wat?

I didnt even get a gay rainbow association when I saw tje google doodle, it was just some coloured panels associated with sports

And all power tto google for it


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

What I think is interesting is that many of the replies so far illustrate exactly why I think this may not be fair to the employees.  Everyone is referring to 'the company'.  Well, who _is _'the company'?  Did the mailclerk get to take part in the meeting where the decision to make the statement was made?  What about your average business analyst or even department manager?  That's sort of the point.  We talk about 'the company' when 1 or 2 percent of its employees had anything to do with this.

And yeah, the people could just quit if they didn't like the statement.  That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 10, 2014)

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.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> [COMMENT][/COMMENT]
> 
> Depends on how you measure efficiency.
> 
> ...




One example is demonstrative that it can be done well, yes.  It isn't proof that it is *generally* done well.

There's lots of charities who spend 80% or more of their money on the "mission", rather than on administrative costs.  Yes, many of these are large, so economy of scale comes into play.  There are multiple agencies out there checking on this for you, and reporting on it for free.  

How much of our government runs with less than 20% overhead, really?  How easy is it for a normal person to discover whether a program is running well?



> Government welfare programs also tend to hit economic sectors private charities simply don't.




Charity coverage is by no means universal, true.  But I'm not arguing that we should get rid of all government assistance.  I'm just saying that some small encouragement for private citizens to get into charity work is likely justified as darned useful and worthwhile.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> I do not think it is about who is more efficient with the money, though that is a closely related question. The tax deduction for charity is not really about spending money but rather allocating it.




My point is that it is somewhat about spending the money.  If the charity can do the same job more cheaply, the government should encourage private engagement directly with the charity rather than through government programs.  I don't mean it in the extreme sense of "government should be in the business of charity".  Merely that there's probably sound economic reason for the government to encourage private involvement in charity, alongside government efforts.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.




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.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> What I think is interesting is that many of the replies so far illustrate exactly why I think this may not be fair to the employees.  Everyone is referring to 'the company'.  Well, who _is _'the company'?  Did the mailclerk get to take part in the meeting where the decision to make the statement was made?  What about your average business analyst or even department manager?  That's sort of the point.  We talk about 'the company' when 1 or 2 percent of its employees had anything to do with this.
> 
> And yeah, the people could just quit if they didn't like the statement.  That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.



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_.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 10, 2014)

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 (Feb 10, 2014)

Morrus said:


> 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.



Umbran said:


> 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.



EscherEnigma said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> 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.  



Morrus said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2014)

billd91 said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2014)

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


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


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



Drink less.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> 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.




The people the company makes its money from have a decent say in a lot of things, too.



> 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.




My question is whether Google really needs people talking about it.  



billd91 said:


> 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.




They're also, you know, divisive - which is where the question comes in: Is it fair to the company's employees?  



EscherEnigma said:


> 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.




Fair enough.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The people the company makes its money from have a decent say in a lot of things, too.




They have a say in what company they will give their money to, sure.  But their opinion doesn't reflect what the company needs, but what they want the company to need, or probably what they feel the company ought to have - which is not the same thing at all. 



> My question is whether Google really needs people talking about it.




In what sense of "they don't need it"?  In the sense that you feel that people talking about it actually harm the company?  In the sense that you feel that more people talking about it won't actually help them keep their market share or revenue?  In the sense that you just don't feel they merit more public focus?  

Google's a diverse business, but ultimately they will fall if people don't think of them as solid, with good features and products.  If people stop using their name as a verb, "Just google it!", they lose market share.  If enterprises stop moving their e-mail to Google, they lose market share, and so on.

In what way is people talking about them not in their best interests if that talk is largely positive?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> They have a say in what company they will give their money to, sure.  But their opinion doesn't reflect what the company needs, but what they want the company to need, or probably what they feel the company ought to have - which is not the same thing at all.




They vote with their business.  If a company does something that causes a loss of a significant amount of business, well, I'd say the people are telling that company what it needs.

A&E suspended that Duck guy because that's what they thought people wanted.  The people, however, told A&E that that's not what they wanted.  Result: DD is on the air.



> In what sense of "they don't need it"?  In the sense that you feel that people talking about it actually harm the company?  In the sense that you feel that more people talking about it won't actually help them keep their market share or revenue?  In the sense that you just don't feel they merit more public focus?
> 
> Google's a diverse business, but ultimately they will fall if people don't think of them as solid, with good features and products.  If people stop using their name as a verb, "Just google it!", they lose market share.  If enterprises stop moving their e-mail to Google, they lose market share, and so on.
> 
> In what way is people talking about them not in their best interests if that talk is largely positive?




Google didn't need a profile bump right now.  They're doing pretty well, IIRC.  Something like this is a risk as well.  It's not definitely going to result in positive discussion.  Enough people have negative feelings about this (see the DD example above) that any company making a statement like this runs a risk of alienating a substantial number of customers (or users, whatever).  So if the explanation is for some good ink, I don't see a need - especially when you consider what they chose to run with and the potential for blowing up in their face that it has.

I don't think Google did it for the press anyway.  I don't think they care.


----------



## The_Silversword (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Drink less.




I dont think that would help, I mean its just rainbow colored olympic guys, Rainbows automatically mean homosexuality?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

That and Nyan Cats.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Something like this is a risk as well.  It's not definitely going to result in positive discussion.  Enough people have negative feelings about this (see the DD example above) that any company making a statement like this runs a risk of alienating a substantial number of customers (or users, whatever).




You're right, for a big company, if it causes major Bad Feelings, that's a problem.  So, I don't expect any big company to make such a statement unless/until they're pretty darned sure the result is overall positive for them.  And who, of all companies, is apt to have the data, and data mining capabilities, to determine the likely outcome, if not Google?  There is no bigger player in "Big Data", after all.

Honestly, I think the ads are less about the companies taking sides in the various culture wars, as them seeing the handwriting on the wall about who is going to win, in the long run.  Yes, they'll lose some business from the losing side - but if they're a minority and shrinking, they're no longer a major concern for profits.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> You're right, for a big company, if it causes major Bad Feelings, that's a problem.  So, I don't expect any big company to make such a statement unless/until they're pretty darned sure the result is overall positive for them.  And who, of all companies, is apt to have the data, and data mining capabilities, to determine the likely outcome, if not Google?  There is no bigger player in "Big Data", after all.




Well, if they looked at any data from the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle ... 

I think what you said next is the most likely explanation, though:



> Honestly, I think the ads are less about the companies taking sides in the various culture wars, as them seeing the handwriting on the wall about who is going to win, in the long run.  Yes, they'll lose some business from the losing side - but if they're a minority and shrinking, they're no longer a major concern for profits.




Yeah, it certainly seems like the best decision would be to align yourself now because the end of this war is (hopefully) without doubt.  Lose a few now to earn more later because of your early adoption.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Well, if they looked at any data from the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle ...




Exactly. Look at the data.  Duck Dynasty _*lost 28% of their viewership*_, comparing this season's premier with last season's.  



> Yeah, it certainly seems like the best decision would be to align yourself now because the end of this war is (hopefully) without doubt.  Lose a few now to earn more later because of your early adoption.




Well, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the net change is positive for them, even right now.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Exactly. Look at the data.  Duck Dynasty _*lost 28% of their viewership*_, comparing this season's premier with last season's.




And what percentage of viewers - and revenue generated by them - would A&E have lost if they bowed to the lesser pressure and canned the show?  Oh yeah, 100%.    It's obvious that more - or, at the least, enough - folks wanted to see those guys than didn't.  They're still on the air.

And that said, ratings are a little more nuanced than you're presenting.  Shows typically decline over time and a fair number of lost viewers may simply be due to that.  Presenting the 28% loss as you did implies that this is all due to the flap caused by dood's comments.  That's ... specious.  



> Well, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the net change is positive for them, even right now.




One can hope.  I know I like it but the A&E thing has me wondering just how many folks do.  At the same time, the NFL is in the news for something sort of related and depending upon what article you're reading, there's either a lot of good news (players and the union expressing support) or bad (scouts dropping draft rank because of the revelation).  It's a complex world and assumptions here can be dangerous.  

Meh, as far as you and I are concerned it's a positive for Google.  I think we can both be happy with at least that.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And that said, ratings are a little more nuanced than you're presenting.  Shows typically decline over time and a fair number of lost viewers may simply be due to that.  Presenting the 28% loss as you did implies that this is all due to the flap caused by dood's comments.  That's ... specious.




I don't think it is specious at all, for this context.  Yes, shows do lose viewers over time, and not all of that loss will be due to the controversy. But however they lost it, they did lose it.  For a popular show, typical ratings loss is more like 10%, as I understand.  A drop of over a quarter is serious trouble.  

The public media noise around the controversy is just smoke.  What tells, in the end, is the viewership. If there were really solid backing for the star and his ideas, viewership should have been up (or at least flat), not way down, for that season premier.  Some noisy people made a stink, but that did not translate into supportive results or action in the long run.  

So, if we are to use that controversy as an indicator - while some noisy people may make a stink about the Google doodle, or the Coke or Cheerios ad, that noise will not correlate to action.  Apparently, the risk for taking such a stand is not large*.  Heck, the Superbowl Cheerios ad was the second of its kind - some people made a stink about the first.  If the business found that it ultimately hurt them, do you really think they'd have so deliberately thumbed their nose at those people a second time?  No!  


*As Tom Lehrer satirically noted, "It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffee-house or a college auditorium and come out in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against - like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on."


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I don't think it is specious at all, for this context.  Yes, shows do lose viewers over time, and not all of that loss will be due to the controversy. But however they lost it, they did lose it.  For a popular show, typical ratings loss is more like 10%, as I understand.  A drop of over a quarter is serious trouble.
> 
> The public media noise around the controversy is just smoke.  What tells, in the end, is the viewership. If there were really solid backing for the star and his ideas, viewership should have been up (or at least flat), not way down, for that season premier.  Some noisy people made a stink, but that did not translate into supportive results or action in the long run.
> 
> ...




I explained why I thought it was specious.

At any rate, they did lose viewers.  However, as stated before, they didn't lose nearly as many as they would have had they canned the show.  My entire point here is that what some are presenting as a 'safe' or 'positive' statement isn't necessarily so.  It by all means should be but there is obviously a significant number of folks who see it as a negative. 

As for DD, the initial public outcry was against the show and A&E responded - quickly - in tune with that noise.  After they did, _louder _noise popped up demanding they reinstate the man who made the comments.  In this case, noise from both sides of the issue actually spawned action.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2014)

Umbran said:


> 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.




I'm not so sure of that. Take a look at the gay rights issue. Gay marriage rights are polling well and state bans are falling - but the deck is still stacked against same sex marriages in more than half the states and in a lot of countries across the globe the issue is getting worse for homosexuals (just check current moves in some African states and, of course, Russia). By putting a same sex couple in the Coke ad, by putting the rainbow on the Google Doodle, these corporations may be acting when the issue is reaching a major decisive point when just a few years ago everything was tacking the opposite direction and bans were nearly unstoppable.

And that's without even getting into the issues the US still has with racism and the recent setbacks that have been thrown at minority voting participation. It may be 50 years too late for Coke to be at the vanguard, but they're involved against racism right when a series of setbacks are being pushed pretty hard. So I'll give them some credit for taking a stand and portraying mixed race marriage and kids as a perfectly normal part of the American experience.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 12, 2014)

And really, the only way to get this stuff more widely accepted is to stop treating it as something rare or odd and to expose more people to it.  I applaud the companies that do that but still have to wonder if it's really their place.


----------

