Friday, May 06, 2005
A "Don't Be Evil" lesson
I remarked in an earlier post that the US press was missing the cause of GM's troubles. GM's problem is crummy cars (and has been for the last 50 years), not pension and health care costs, but you wouldn't know it from scanning the headlines.
Katie Hafner, writing in the NY Times, suggests why the press is pulling its punches. She writes:
The business side of a newspaper is supposed to keep its mitts off the editorial side of the house. If the editorial side gets the story wrong (e.g., the GM story) it makes people distrust the press leading to less sales and fewer ad revenues. Wonder why the U.S. press is circling the drain? I'll get my news elsewhere, thank you!
At Telecosm 2001 I threw Google CEO Eric Schmidt a softball; I asked what Google was doing to make itself so good. His answer surprised me. He said that like a newspaper, Google kept a clean separation between its search engine and its ad revenue machine.
Watching Google over the years, I've not seen a violation of this principle. Surely Google has huge power (see, for example, Jeff Jarvis' recent rant), but as long as it earns my trust in its use of that power, I'll remain a customer.
Restraint in the use of power. Voluntary acknowledgment of certain tacit boundaries to preserve valuable reputation. Even some politicians know that these are key ingredients of, "Don't be evil."
Katie Hafner, writing in the NY Times, suggests why the press is pulling its punches. She writes:
This month, General Motors withdrew its advertising from The Los Angeles Times because it was irritated at the newspaper's coverage of G.M.Searching back through Google News, it is easy to find lots of write-ups of this story.
The business side of a newspaper is supposed to keep its mitts off the editorial side of the house. If the editorial side gets the story wrong (e.g., the GM story) it makes people distrust the press leading to less sales and fewer ad revenues. Wonder why the U.S. press is circling the drain? I'll get my news elsewhere, thank you!
At Telecosm 2001 I threw Google CEO Eric Schmidt a softball; I asked what Google was doing to make itself so good. His answer surprised me. He said that like a newspaper, Google kept a clean separation between its search engine and its ad revenue machine.
Watching Google over the years, I've not seen a violation of this principle. Surely Google has huge power (see, for example, Jeff Jarvis' recent rant), but as long as it earns my trust in its use of that power, I'll remain a customer.
Restraint in the use of power. Voluntary acknowledgment of certain tacit boundaries to preserve valuable reputation. Even some politicians know that these are key ingredients of, "Don't be evil."
Technorati Tags: DontBeEvil, EricSchmidt, Google, JeffJarvis, KatieHafner, Press
Comments:
I think you nailed the definition of "Don't Be Evil." It's about earning the trust of the public by avoiding conflicts of interest.
It would be easy for Google to dramatically boost this year's earnings by taking ad money to influence search results. Ranking in the first ten results for a search on "digital camera" is worth a lot dough.
Some in the traditional media are losing sight of their fiduciary duty to the public, and are selling out for a quick buck. But I think the price they pay in the long term is the erosion of the public's trust, just as you're not getting your news from the US press anymore.
Some people say that corporate social responsibility, or a "Don't Be Evil" ethic, are actually unethical because to forgo revenue in pursuit of ethics shortchanges the shareholder. I think Google has shown that maybe a "Don't Be Evil" approach is the one reliable way to build value that endures.
Post a Comment
It would be easy for Google to dramatically boost this year's earnings by taking ad money to influence search results. Ranking in the first ten results for a search on "digital camera" is worth a lot dough.
Some in the traditional media are losing sight of their fiduciary duty to the public, and are selling out for a quick buck. But I think the price they pay in the long term is the erosion of the public's trust, just as you're not getting your news from the US press anymore.
Some people say that corporate social responsibility, or a "Don't Be Evil" ethic, are actually unethical because to forgo revenue in pursuit of ethics shortchanges the shareholder. I think Google has shown that maybe a "Don't Be Evil" approach is the one reliable way to build value that endures.
