And that line is comprised of dollar bills.
Last week I was critical of Robert Scoble for hinting that opacity was sometimes preferable to transparency. At the same time, Google was fighting out a mini-battle when one of their bloggers suggested that advertising was a form of democratic expression and that Google Adsense ads may be the best way to express oneself.
This resulted in Google running an article on their blog talking about how much they love health care.
This is the problem that companies will always run into: It's easier to hit "publish" than it is to go back and thoughtfully edit.
Google says:
In a world of 24/7 news cycles, a summer weekend can bring considerable -- and unanticipated -- excitement. Take for example the reaction we've just seen to an item on our new health advertising blog. Frankly, we were surprised by the pickup, but perhaps we shouldn't have been. We've been proponents of corporate blogging for some time, despite the significant communication challenges that obviously arise from having many voices from all parts of our company speak publicly through blog posts. In this case, the blog criticized Michael Moore's new film "Sicko" to suggest how health care companies might use our ad programs when they face controversy. Our internal review of the piece before publication failed to recognize that readers would -- properly, but incorrectly -- impute the criticisms as reflecting Google's official position. We blew it.
This shows a few things, first that Google vets the information before it goes out. Second, Google isn't perfect. Third, Google understands that transparency doesn't just show the good in you.
The more troubling issues for Google come in the NY Times article referenced in the "reaction" link in the above quote. NYT readers seem to be rather worked up about internal AdSense links.
The blog entry I've quoted above is great, it's succinct, it's obviously backpedaling, and it's a visceral bloody nose. But there's a trust issue here that's deeper than a blog entry. Now people are questioning the selection of AdSense ads and potentially politically or financially motivated pruning of certain ads.
What a tough spot to be in for Google! The ads they are getting are supposed to be open, free and democratic. But, as any viewer of television during an election year can tell you, that means attack ads. Google would likely enjoy avoiding becoming "AttackAdSense". But, just like the supreme court showed us the other day, attack ads are free speech.
It'll be interesting to watch how not only blogging and PR meet up, but also AdSense and PR.
The BoingBoing link quotes the blog as saying, "advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue." One vote per person I would call "democracy"; one vote per dollar I would call "capitalism". There's a difference.
Posted by: whereswilliam | 03 July 2007 at 00:18
"whereswilliam" has an excellent point. And it's one we need to keep remembering. Democracy is a kind of political and civic arrangement. Advertising is a business tactic. And while it's pretty clear that the boundaries in a socio-politico-economic society are fuzzy and porous, I just have a hard time parsing this sentence.
"The ads they are getting are supposed to be open, free and democratic."
Jim, please say more about how ads are (a) open, (b) free, and (c) democratic. Seriously, I think I'm missing something important here.
-Bill
Posted by: Bill Anderson | 03 July 2007 at 13:04
Strange, I must have not been clear.
I was saying that they are specifically not democratic, but Google was claiming they were.
I thought this paragraph was saying that there are inherent problems with the assumption that they are:
What a tough spot to be in for Google! The ads they are getting are supposed to be open, free and democratic. But, as any viewer of television during an election year can tell you, that means attack ads. Google would likely enjoy avoiding becoming "AttackAdSense". But, just like the supreme court showed us the other day, attack ads are free speech.
--
Google wants their ads to be free of bias, but anyone participating can place a pro or con ad tied to a keyword. The more they pay, the more they control that keyword. They were specifically stopping certain attack sites. Which doesn't solve the problem, only exacerbates it.
Posted by: Jim Benson | 03 July 2007 at 13:40
Jim, I thought your sentence was clear. I just don't understand how paid speech is free of bias. Or, how any speech is free of bias. And I just don't understand what meanings of "open" and "democratic" apply to advertising. I really don't. Maybe I need to work harder to figure this out. And just because the Supreme Court says attack ads are free speech, doesn't help me understand that notion. I really don't get it ... or I refuse to get it, which is not out of the question.
Posted by: Bill Anderson | 05 July 2007 at 23:26
Hey Bill,
The words 'open and democratic' came from Google. Ideally, their advertising is free of bias and editing. Anyone who wants to buy an ad can and they don't stop anyone at any time from doing so. In reality, this is far from the truth. They see their ad as "voting with your dollars". But Google actively edits and clears ads that come through their system.
So, while they have the rhetoric of an open (but at cost system) they obviously do not actually have the structure of an open (and free) system.
If the terms open or free apply at all to advertising, it would be in a forum where you could be open and free to advertise in any way you choose. Which is unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Jim Benson | 06 July 2007 at 10:48