Evil is as Evil Does

Well it finally happened. Our benevolent Internet Overlords have finally gone rogue. I am, of course, talking about Google. Welcome to the Dark Side Google... we've been expecting you. You may or may not know that I am an Internet marketing consultant. You'd never guess it from my blog, but I actually work with companies to make their online efforts more effective and useful. That includes websites.

Google has a long-held (well since the 2004 IPO) informal motto of: "Don't Be Evil". This stems from a letter from its founders stating: ". . . Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company."

OK. Cool. I like that. I can get on board with not being evil, just as much as I can get on board with being against Bubonic Plague or airline food. But something has gone terribly wrong. Recently, Google unveiled "Side Wiki" as part of the Google Toolbar plug-in for your browser. This nifty little tool essentially allows anyone to post a comment about the website they are currently visiting allowing users who are also viewing that website to see said comments. So where's the harm in that you ask? What sinister plot does this seemingly helpful little widget reveal?

Let me put it this way. People spend a lot of effort and money on their websites, sometimes millions of dollars. Often it is the core marketing and sales vehicle for their company. In some cases these are regulated companies like pharmaceutical companies. What Google has done here is to provide an effective tool designed to wipe out the investment made by organizations trying to present their products or company the way they want. In other words, companies have spent money to build a site that they feel best represents their interests to their potential customers on the open marketplace of ideas. If there is a differing opinion, other sites are welcome to make their case as well. But if I've spent millions driving traffic to my site... say Microsoft.com, and some competitor pays a college kid to write something terrible about Microsoft Internet Explorer and that everyone should use Google Chrome as their browser... then I am paying for my competitors to advertise against me, right on my own Web property.

It's like allowing General Motors to go to every Toyota dealership and spray-paint the side of the building with: "Toyota Cars Kill Americans!"

"But wait," you say, "There is review of these posts. It is designed to provide helpful feedback and improve the quality of life for everyone not evil marketing practices." Well, you know where you CAN'T post a comment? The download page of Google's toolbar. But you can sure as hell post one on Microsoft's home page:

So I guess now, Microsoft is lucky enough to have helpful tips on their own home page like: "My hope is one day Microsoft with stop trying to make-up web standards and instead jump on board the current and future standards which Opera, Google Chrome, Safari and Firefox have embraced from the beginning."

Did I catch that right? On Microsoft's home page there is now an option to see content that tells users that they should use Google Chrome. Nice.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that now Google is forcing everyone who has any stake in a company's website to first, use the Google Toolbar on their browser so they can at least see all the crap people are saying about them on their own website, second, it forces companies which are regulated, like pharmaceutical companies to report any claims made against their products (true or not) to the FDA and possibly hold off clinical trials for drugs and medical devices that could be saving lives, and finally, it creates a chilling effect whereby companies are now better served by hiding content and indeed their entire websites under login structures and secure socket layers to avoid having their own brand investment used against them by competitors, thereby making the majority of useful content online harder to access for everyone. Gee, thanks Google!

This is just plain irresponsible of Google. But is it evil? I am sure it is well intentioned. The goals are for the common good, designed to help and protect us all. Therefore I can definitively state that it is evil of the highest order.

But more importantly, it's stupid. I control the online advertising budgets for several companies. I'll be damned if I am going to pay Google to send users to my site, and then allow Google to encourage some knock-off third rate competitor to use that traffic against me. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. 

And just in case you don't happen to be a Google shareholder, don't worry this will cost you too. You see, now every company needs to spend time and money essentially writing a blog to repudiate or answer possibly erroneous commentary. That costs money. Money that gets charged back to consumers. In essence, now every company has to have a blog whether they want to or not. But don't worry, the blog is monitored... by Google.

"Run Forrest! Run!"