Differing Values: Google and Italy

Google isn't like other companies. It proclaims that its core values, like freely spreading information over the internet, dictate its actions and not a desire for profits. But as the anecdote in Ken Auletta's book "Googled" about Esther Dyson, the foreign minister of Denmark, and Singapore's Ambassador shows, that universal values aren't always universal: "This exchange was a reminder that "common values" are not always common, and that Google, whose mission is to share and make the world's information accessible, will always have government bears to contend with". And the most recent of these bears is the Italian courts, who just a couple days ago passed down a decision against Google in a privacy case.

The case was over a video of an autistic child being bullied by other children that appeared on a Google service site for a couple of months in 2006. But the case represented the incredible difference in the value of privacy between European nations and the United States. The Italian Court sentenced the three Google Executives to 6 months of prison for failing to remove the video when it first appeared, a decision more symbolic than literal as the sentences were suspended. This case would never surface in America due to the 1996 Communications Decency Act which absolves internet companies of liability for most of the content posted by their users.

Even the Constitutions of the European Union and the United States differ drastically in their value of privacy and freedom of speech. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights proclaims the right of individuals to their privacy, while the right to free speech doesn't appear until Article 10. America, however, prides itself on its freedom of speech which appears as the First Amendment. The value of individual privacy, with the exception of government searches, makes no direct appearance in the Constitution.

Google, along with America, believes in the power of the individual, their right to free speech and knowledge, and the use of the internet as a conduit for spreading these values. But for Google to believe that their set of values is the only set of values around the world is foolish and naive. As the Italian Court decision shows, other countries are not scared to go head to head with this massive corporation if they clash with their laws and beliefs. And if Google cannot understand the differing values around the world, it could prove to be their undoing.

Works Cited:

Ken Auletta's "Googled"

The New York Times "When American and European Ideas of Privacy Collide"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html?ref=weekinreview

The Olympic Ideal

Oh the Olympics. Whether it's the summer or winter games, they're sure to be filled with heroic stories of redemption, perseverance, and national pride. Not to mention the insane amount of advertising dollars that they generate. Companies are willing to dish out big bucks for the right to be called an Olympic sponsor. And to nobody's surprise, companies tend to get a little upset when the image that they've dished out millions for is slightly tarnished by the partying and celebrating of the athletes.

Isn't that adorable? Even as grown adults and as the best athletes in their respective sports, Olympians will always be their mother's child. Proctor and Gamble has released a number of these ads targeting middle aged mothers watching the Olympics. Many of the sponsors are combining the wholesomeness of the Olympics with their brand identity. But much to these companies' despair, humans don't always preform wholesome and family-friendly acts.

Take Scott Lago for example. After winning the bronze in halfpipe for snowboard, he went out with a bunch of friends to party. One thing led to another, some pictures were taken, and he was sent home by the United States Ski and Snowboard Association. Was it a good idea for Scott to put himself in a situation were those pictures could be taken? Probably not. Can you blame a 22 year old for going out to party and have a good time after medaling in the Olympics? Probably not either. But unfortunately he got caught and those pictures seem to contrast with the family image portrayed by the Proctor and Gamble commercials. Another similar story also occurred after the Canadian Women's Hockey team won gold. As in most sports after a major victory, teammates shower champagne everywhere in celebration....but usually in the locker room. The Canadian Women did the exact same thing that any other team would do...but on the ice. For this reason they are now being investigated by the IOC and COC. Keep in mind that these players did this after all of the fans had cleared out.

Guess what? Even though Olympians are expected to live up to this ridiculous ideal of athleticism and wholesomeness, they are still humans. Do humans ever drink? Sure they do. Do humans like to go out to party? A fair number of them. Do humans ever smoke pot? Michael Phelps anyone? Yes they have some responsibility as role models to live up to expectations and if they don't they are liable to suspension and lose of corporate sponsors. But in all honesty, its nothing compared to what others living in the public eye get away with (politicians for example). So cut them some slack. After all, they're only human.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "Back Home, U.S. Snowboarder Finds Solace"

ESPN "Champagne Wishes, Gold Medal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSn5Z7EC4ME

The New York Times "Phelps Disciplined Over Marijuana Pipe Incident"

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/51976819/Olympic_Logo_Specila_design.jpg

It's All the Buzz (But not the positive kind)

As Ken Auletta reports in his book "Googled", "[Google is] an engineering-driven and focused culture". This can be quite useful for a technologically focused company. Complex algorithms, new technologies, and data analysis comes easily to the science dominated minds of the Google employees. But as Auletta observes, "Engineers are rarely accomplished communicators. Google is a culture dominated by a belief in science, in data, and in facts, not instinct or perception or opinion". And this lack of value in the visual and design aspects of Google can lead to some major complications and confusions in new products. Most recently: Google Buzz.

With the success of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, it only seems natural that Google would want to expand into this field. Recently, Google released Buzz, its version of an expanded Twitter. The simplicity of Twitter eventually leads to restriction. (For example not being able to post videos or photos and limiting posts to 140 characters). Buzz offers solutions to all of these things, with unlimited characters, the ability to comment on posts and search them, and link to photos and videos.

But in all of these solutions, Google Buzz has some very big drawbacks. First of all its incredibly intertwined to you're Gmail account. This wouldn't be a problem for most unless you don't want another tool through which Google can track and sell your information (but thats an entirely different topic). Also Buzz automatically signs you up to follow the people you most frequently communicate with on Gmail. This seems like a logical decision (as Google employees like to think all of their decisions are), but it can cause some complications. For example, you're followers can see all of the other people you follow and thus all the people you email with most frequently. And this information is something you might not want people to see. Also there are many design flaws and inconsistencies that make this site difficult to use (for example posts aren't always listed in chronological order).

Donald A. Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" asserts that those who create things don't always do so from the vantage point of the user. This can lead to products that are highly functional to a trained person, but seemingly overly complex to your Average Joe. While Google has in the past done wonders in simplicity with their products like their search engine, Buzz remains a little bit underdeveloped. Google has been making incredible improvements over the past week to the new system. But as their modifications and apology letters attest, not every design can be boiled down to a simple logic problem.

Works Cited:

Ken Auletta's "Googled"

The New York Times "Buzzing, Tweeting, and Carping"

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/02/14/1118901/buzz1-420x0.jpg

Building a False Identity

It's no secret that companies go to great lengths to pull on your heartstrings and build a positive image for their company. If you're like me, you don't necessarily keep up on all the current events. And if you're as young as me, you don't have the luxury of having observed companies evolve over the past few decades. Up until a few weeks ago, I wasn't that aware of the power of commercials and the messages that they try to send. Since then, my senses have kicked into overdrive and observed that the company portrayed in the commercials isn't quite the company it is in real life.

Man! Don't you feel good about Microsoft after that commercial? For the past couple years, Apple has held the title as the cool, hip company while Microsoft has suffered as the nerdy, boring computer company. But in this commercial, PC's try to strike back. They show diverse, yet average people countering the exclusive, elitism of Mac. They show people helping to teach children and working to save the earth. But in reality Microsoft is not the kind, friendly company it portrays itself to be.

Microsoft seems almost like an underdog in its recent advertising battle against Apple. But for decades the company has been known as an evil empire, facing antitrust suit after antitrust suit. Recently, Microsoft has faced problems in Europe where they faced an antitrust charge for packing the Internet Explorer web browser with their operating system. The two parties eventually settled in late 2009, but this case marks the end of a costly decade as Microsoft has racked up fines and penalties amounting to 1.67 billion euro in Europe.

Keeping up on the current events of a company is crucial in determining its actual identity. Companies always try to build a positive image in their commercial, while doing their best to sweep the bad press under the rug. But if you can pierce through the facade, you can see the true face of the corporation. This information can allow to decide for yourself whether or not this is a company you want to support. And it might be tough, but avoid being sucked into those affective marketing schemes. After all, nobody wants to be a corporate tool.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "Microsoft Fights Antitrust Charge Over Its Browser"

The New York Times "Europe Drops Microsoft Antitrust Case"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJHMkSpEuAY

http://smt-info.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/microsoft_logo.jpg

GE: Humanizing Technology

We have read about the transition from selling products to selling brands in multiple sources. Manufacturers and companies originally believed that the production of products was their main purpose and the path to profits. And as such, advertisements reflected those beliefs. But as generic and near identical products flooded the marketplace, companies began to see the value of brand power in sales. Today, companies believe that if they are able to transcend their actual products and build an emotional connection with their consumers, then they will prevail. This change in beliefs and purpose over the years has led to a change in advertisements and their goals and can be observed by comparing past and present commercials of GE.





These two commercials, from 1983 and 1989 respectively, exemplify the belief of selling products rather than brands. The first commercial, while showing a wide variety of people using the product, focuses mainly on the TV. The television remains constant through all of the different settings and the commercial discusses the advantages and features of the product. The second commercial is even more dehumanized than the first. While the first one at least has some people talking, the second one only has them walking around using the product with a bodiless voice narrating the commercial. It basically runs like an informercial: listing the features of the product and giving you a number to call at the end. The commercial works to glorify the product and the supposedly amazing benefits it will bring to your life. The dramatic music in the background (you might recognize it as the theme of 2001: A Space Odyssey) adds to the "importance" of the product that the commercial tries to sell. Also, the brand GE is only mentioned once at the beginning and once at the end in print.

Now take a look at these commercials. Quite different than the ones a few decades ago. The commercials nowadays don't necessarily "sell" a certain product, but the brand of GE. Through these commercials, GE sells itself as a company that brings people together and helps doctors treat those in need. Both of these commercials accomplish this by telling a story, putting a human face on the company, and throwing in a little lightheartedness to make you laugh. But both of the commercials also end with the GE logo and its slogan to make sure you remember the brand.

Advertising agencies constantly employ new tactics to build their brand image. GE has moved away from selling technology to selling itself as a warmhearted company that brings people together and keeps them healthy. To do this, they try to humanize that which is inherently dehumanized: technology. It is no doubt that as these commercials have evolved over the years, they have gained much more power. After watching the newer commercials, I feel much more endeared to GE than the ones from the '80's. And in the end that's the ultimate goal of branding: to associate itself with a positive image and strong emotions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbk1O7U9aU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAeBlL1zuko&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65C-rnKSXXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WCjpYKQ0qk

http://blog.tmcnet.com/beyond-voip/GE%20logo.jpg

A Blessing of Nature

For the vast majority of people living in the US and in other industrialized nations, we no longer make our own goods. Clothes, furniture, etc. All of these goods are made in far away countries as opposed to by our own hands. Jean Baudrillard asserts that "once severed from its objective determinations, the profusion of goods is felt as a blessing of nature, as a manna, a gift from heaven". We go to stores, and as if by magic, the thing we are seeking is there. It appears almost without origin and through no work of our own. And if the concept of finding items in a store is a blessing of nature, then the ultimate gift must be online shopping.

In recent years, online shopping has grown tremendously. If you really think about it, online shopping is pretty miraculous. You go to Google Shopping, type in whatever your looking for, click a few links, enter a few numbers, and then it magically appears on your front doorstep. Americans are turning more often to online shopping as opposed to traditional shopping. Coupons, sales, bargains, not to mention a huge selection of goods are just a few of the advantages of shopping online. Companies take advantage of this consumer interest, especially during the holiday season. In December, 36 million consumers visited coupon sites to get discounts for online shops. Not to mention massive online retailers such as Amazon and Walmart that have capitalized and grown due to this interest. EBay, a name that is synonymous with internet shopping, has grown tremendously in the past year. The company's e-commerce sites have grown 15%, with much of the business coming from outside the United States.

All human societies started out as producers. They scavenged, hunted, grew their food, and made their goods. But those times have fallen by the wayside. Our society has become one of consumers. And as a result of this we have become dependent on other societies to produce and the daily miracles that are sites like Amazon, eBay, and others.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "More Shoppers Go Online, Hungry for Deals"

The New York Times "EBay’s Profit Rises Sharply, Aided by Sale of Skype"

http://www.reallynatural.com/pictures/onlineshopping.jpg

Toyota: Moving Forward?

Safety, dependability, and family. That's what Toyota has built as its brand image. And people eat it up. But what Toyota doesn't show you in its commercials is its incredible ambitions and the cost of achieving those goals. 8 years ago, Toyota set a goal to own 15% of the automobile market by 2010. This means that they would become the largest auto maker in the world, but they would also have to grow their company by 50%. But as the recent headlines attest, recalls and faulty parts are the cost to pay for such rapid growth.

There are two major problems with Toyota cars: sticky accelerators and faulty brakes. To combat the problem of unintended accelerations, Toyota has proposed to install braking override systems. This solution will hopefully solve the problem that has led to millions of recalls due to potential accelerator problems. But unlike the sticky accelerator problem which extends across multiple models, the braking problem seems to mainly affect hybrid models. The hybrids use a combination of traditional brake pads and an electronic system. Toyota has identified that the problem occurs when the car switches between these two systems, when the anti-lock system begins to kick in.

Whether or not this incident proves to be the fall of Toyota or merely a small dent on its image remains to be determined. But one thing that will be a factor in this decision is the brand image of Toyota and the emotional connection it has built with its customers. Toyota owners are known for their exceptional loyalty and consumers in general are known for having notoriously short memories. Toyota has expanded quickly, maybe even too quickly. And the cult of efficiency and growth it has been preaching for the past few years maybe catching up with them. But if they handle themselves in the right manner during this time, they can maintain their status as the world's largest auto manufacturers and avoid losing their consumer base and brand image.

Works Cited:

The New York Times "Toyota Is to Recall 2010 Prius Model Cars for Brakes"

The New York Times "Toyota Says More Models Might Get Fix for Acceleration"

The New York Times "Rapid Growth Has Its Perils, Toyota Learns"

http://me.stanford.edu/groups/design/automotive/images/LogoToyota.jpg