Google Stays True to Its Brand Promise

Google continues to be in disputes with the Chinese over what content should be restricted. This dispute started many years ago. How Google has handled it shows their differentiation versus Yahoo! and others.

Google has a mission to "do no evil". Its founders wanted to attempt to do well by doing good. The company was wise early on when it brought on CEO Eric Schmidt, one of the best CEOs in Silicon Valley--adult supervision that Yahoo! could have used.

About 10 years ago, California wanted the search engines to provide the names of anyone who did a search that might be related to child pornography, in hopes of entrapping pedophiles. Yahoo!, MSN, AOL and others quickly complied; Google refused, saying that those who used its search engine did so with the guarantee of anonymity. Identifying someone as a pedophile from a search was a "slippery slope" that would open the Internet to censorship. While pedophilia is a horrific crime, how might one differentiate a student or journalist doing research on the subject from a true pedophile. It could become a new "McCarthy era" witch-hunt, with people being judged guilty until they could prove themselves innocent, but tainted nonetheless. Google judged that agreeing with California authorities would not be true to their brand promise. They incurred the wrath of California authorities and others who questioned their morals and ethics.

Fast forward, and Google ran into trouble with the Chinese government that wanted the names of anyone in China who searched for information about banned subjects (e.g.,Tiananmen Square, or Falun Gong, a banned religious group, or the Dalai Lama). Yahoo! complied, turning over the names of journalists which lead to their arrest and incarceration. Google stayed consistent. It refused to turn over names of those doing searches. Instead, it agreed to put up a notice blocking the information and telling the searcher that they were complying with Chinese law. While the government did not like this, it was accepted.

Google's actions at the time were not applauded by all. Many members of Congress, including the late Cong. Lantos of California, wanted Google and all other companies to abandon China until the country agreed to improve its human rights. Lantos had been a holocaust survivor and had tremendous sensitivities to country abuses of human rights. He had wanted a "Sullivan Principle" (the principles that were introduced by Rev. Leon Sullivan that kept U.S. companies from doing business in South Africa during the time of apartheid) for countries like China.

The dispute in China has continued. Now, Google believes that not only has China been the source of international hacking, but that the Chinese authorities might be behind the hacking of Google and other companies. While the Chinese say that they are not responsible, they do not deny that they want to block Internet and search access that they deem "disruptive to the state and its people". They also have the motive and the ability to get back at Google for its unwillingness to comply with their desire to hunt down offensive searches and searchers. The dispute might drive Google out of China.

Lest anyone think this is easy for Google to stand its ground, they should recognize that China is the largest potential Internet market in the world. The future development of that country's Internet will be enormously profitable. Google could find itself pushed out of operations in China and may make the decision to abandon the country. If Google is not in China, it gives the Chinese the motivation to create a competitor that could challenge Google not only in China, but also around the world. I can image that this will be a difficult situation for Google and its board, given the profits it would be foregoing.

While this may seem like a dispute amongst competing governments and philosophies of government, it is a demonstration of the difficulty companies have globally. Many times, companies argue that they must adapt to the whims and cultures of their different world markets. While adaptation to local customs is a correct action, a company still must maintain a core set of brand attributes that it will keep immutable. This is what Google has been trying to do. I applaud them! They have earned my respect and admiration.