Googleprop

[Cramulus]

the sliver of optimism I have surrounding this topic is that after the political backlash, Chick Fil A revised its donation policies.

I hope that CEOs across the board get the message that we want their products, not their opinions. Using your brand to push your politics should come with a heavy price tag. I hope we're moving towards a period where a company's political agenda is very measured because having one is costly.

I guess that's my form of commercial activism - I want to send the message that I resent having my wallet jerked around by my politics while I'm standing in the food court or pasta isle.

[Telarus]

Oh yeah, its marketing all the way down, excepting a few instances. It's cheap and it's why I find it so god damned frustrating whenI see people piddle themselves with excitement that JOY OF JOYS someone is finally marketing to ME!

Jesus. they don't care. They want your money! They're sort of legally bound to want your money!

Good, it looks like a few of you are starting to get it. What we're seeing is a massive amount of new ideology being pushed into our culture, as university progressivism infects corporations and governments, producing a level of propaganda that I've never seen before. And of course, this Amerikan "rainbow ideology" doesn't appeal to me, since it is clearly motivated by a power agenda that doesn't favor my kind. The mystery is why many of you aren't similarly threatened by it. This is some incredible sorcery that is being worked upon the Western world, to successfully brainwash people into accepting this level of reality distortion and cultural engineering!

[stfu1]

Oh man, the Brother Nihil word-cloud is going to be a FUN one. Nice to see actual discussion happening, tho.

[Telarus]

At the heart of it is the power and influence a small handful of people have gained over us. It is symptomatic of the larger corporateproblem.

You are right, Cram, we should not have to make these decisions when buying a chicken sandwich.

Mmmmm, welcome to the Aftermath of Memetic Feudalism.

[Salty]

Oh yeah, its marketing all the way down, excepting a few instances. It's cheap and it's why I find it so god damned frustrating whenI see people piddle themselves with excitement that JOY OF JOYS someone is finally marketing to ME!

Jesus. they don't care. They want your money! They're sort of legally bound to want your money!

Good, it looks like a few of you are starting to get it. What we're seeing is a massive amount of new ideology being pushed into our culture, as university progressivism infects corporations and governments, producing a level of propaganda that I've never seen before. And of course, this Amerikan "rainbow ideology" doesn't appeal to me, since it is clearly motivated by a power agenda that doesn't favor my kind. The mystery is why many of you aren't similarly threatened by it. This is some incredible sorcery that is being worked upon the Western world, to successfully brainwash people into accepting this level of reality distortion and cultural engineering!

[stfu1]

Oh man, the Brother Nihil word-cloud is going to be a FUN one. Nice to see actual discussion happening, tho.

Funny thing is I didn't even read that post.

We can never discount a good discussion due to the source.

Bullshit may make the flowers grow, but it doesn't mean I have to set it on my dining table.

[Bu🤠ns]

My opinion isn't so much about google, or this issue in particular, but the broader trend... The world is a screwed up place, and you'd have a heart of stone if you didn't feel bad about that and want to help. And that desire is very easy to capitalize on - so I'm very wary of products which act as a stand-in for political activism.

People are so eager to express their opinions and identity through consumerism. Look at chick-fil-a, or the rainbow colored oreos that circulated the net after the Prop 8 thing. The market is getting very political. You can't just eat a bowl of cheerios anymore, you have to consume the politics that comes with it. All your brand choices are now considered a form of activism.

Now you're standing there in the super market wondering what your opinion on immigration is. This union of consumerism and politics is a manipulative and effective way to move product and foster brand loyalty.


Right now you don't mind the rainbow google doodle because it's a topic that you agree with. But imagine them using their visibility and brand to push more controversial political opinions. I just want a search engine to deliver the info I'm looking for, I don't want google's editorial along with it.

Look at the memetic kung-fu that Coke did with their America the Beautiful superbowl commercial. They've positioned your preference for Coke in the context of the great american story and turned it into a discussion about racism and culture. You can participate in the culture war by buying coke.

The trend makes me very uncomfortable.

Consumption has always been political.  Usually it is more abut avoiding companies which have unpleasant political agendas which they hide from us (like having their products manufactured by Chinese children) but I am personally glad that companies are putting their opinions on gays right out front.  All else being equal I'd rather patronize a company that supports gay rights, rather than one that does not and the easier the companies make it for me to make that decision the better for me.  That means I am grateful not only to Google, but also to Chik-Fil-A.

But most don't connect what they fund with what they advertise with. They may advertise pro-gay but they will fund a rabid anti-gay politician.

Like Nabisco in Cram's example.  I'm rather surprised that wasn't spread all over the internet by the various gay rights support organizations when they were running their rainbow oreo campaign.  Currently I am assuming that they offer same sex partner benefits, since otherwise there would have been an uproar.  If they don't then I am, honestly, more disappointed in the pro gay political machine for not pointing out the hypocrisy more loudly.  I'm not a dues paying member, but I like several advocacy groups on facebook and it is kind of their job to point out this sort of hypocrisy.

Can someone direct me to that Nabisco example? I'm looking  but not finding anything.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So...

I'm feeling like there's some pretty faulty logic happening in this thread. I'm still collecting my thoughts on this, but isn't advertising always reflective or embracing of cultural mores, by necessity? It occurs to me that what many of you are talking about is that it makes you feel uncomfortable when some companies embrace shifting social mores, that they likely feel is reflective of the direction their customer base is going in, faster than other companies. I recall extremely similar conversations in the 1980's about the increase in black actors in commercials. At first, the companies that used black actors were "pandering to political correctness" but as time went on, the companies that DIDN'T use black actors became the conspicuous ones. People used to roll their eyes when there were black characters included in sitcoms or women included (as other than ornamentation) in financial or business advertising because it was seen as political manipulation or kowtowing.

Advertising is always going to be part of "culture wars", or what you might accurately call cultural evolution. Jump onto a cultural shift too soon and you're "politicizing your product". Jump onto it too late and you're a fossil, or worse, a bigot.

[Salty]

That's an excellent point.

I have actually heard the idiocy that gay people are all over TV used in the same context as I have heard dumbasses, in 2000's, complain that Samuel L Jackson was in the star wars movies for PC purposes.

What his purple lightsaber means is anyone's gue....

Oh.  Oh myyyy.

[Cain]

It definitely helped in the UK.  While I'm somewhat wary of some of the ways in the representation argument is deployed (ie; by idiots to harass artists irrespective of the context of their work), the biggest shift in social attitude to gays in the UK coincided with much greater use of gay TV presenters, like Graham Norton, and when soaps included storylines with gay characters. Soap operas are especially good for this because, pointless drama aside, they are mostly vehicles for ongoing social issues and concerns, and tend to reach large audiences.

I mean, homosexuality was socially unacceptable (if legal) in the UK right through to the late 80s.  Things like Section 28 and talking about rounding up homosexuals because of AIDS were not exactly uncommon (interestingly, TV helped change the perception of AIDS too).  Things changed in the 90s and 2000s for the better, and I'm pretty sure that TV showing Teh Gaze were not some demonic force, but were rather like everyone else, was part of it.

That and Graham Norton is funny as hell.  I mean, how can you hate a guy like that?

[The Johnny]

It depends on what representation TV does too. Ive seen far less "catty gossip hairdresser gays" into now so e representation of basicly "fat and nurturing woman (with a penis)" trope... this last is in reference to this one show with the hot latina married to the father actor from Married with Children.

So TV representation is a not only a mirror of social judgement but a bit of moral guideline for judgements.

[Cain]

Oh yes, absolutely.  Negative stereotyping, or even well intentioned but patronising examples can be absolutely horrible, both in terms of artistic quality and in terms of social consequences.  I mean, perhaps in America, the Magical Negro trope could be an example of a well meant but patronising positive representation?

But in the case of most of the soaps, they were played by straight actors, they were totally normal people aside from their sexual orientation and usually the plot involved them being unjustly ostracized or punished for their sexuality and overcoming the disapproval of these authority figures.  The overwhelming message was of normality.

[The Johnny]

Did anyone see "the L word" and can commentate how it would apply to the case at hand?

[Cain]

Not seen, couldn't comment.

[Cain]

Also, I'd like to ask why this isn't a greater priority in discussing the villainous Rus Horde:

pro-Kremlin Duma members introduced the latest in a series of harsh anti-terrorism censorship measures: a new packet of laws requiring "websites, content providers, and possibly search engines" to inform on online users to law enforcement upon request. The law will also effectively ban online money transfers between Russia and the outside world, and restrict domestic online transfers as well — bad news for leading US and Russian online payment firms like PayPal, Qiwi and Yandex.Money.

The new anti-terrorism bill is co-authored by Andrei Lugovoi, chief suspect in the polonium assassination of Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko; the bill also authorizes the FSB spy agency to conduct domestic searches of persons and their vehicles inside of Russia, for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just a couple of weeks earlier, on December 30, Putin signed another harsh Internet censorship law co-authored by Lugovoi, granting Russian authorities the power to shut down websites without a court order if the website is deemed "extremist."

Well, I mean, apart from the fact it would draw attention to a) "anti-terrorism legislation" as a cover to suspend human rights, and b) might make Google look like even bigger hypocrites than they already are, given their relationship with the NSA.

[LMNO]

Did anyone see "the L word" and can commentate how it would apply to the case at hand?

As far as I remember it, it drew in viewers because hot women were getting naked (even the "butch" lesbians were pretty damn femme), but as the series progressed, it became more of a 'clothes on' drama, where people were just trying to get through life the same way anyone else was.  So that does sort of fit in with the "normalcy" idea.

[Cramulus]

So...

I'm feeling like there's some pretty faulty logic happening in this thread. I'm still collecting my thoughts on this, but isn't advertising always reflective or embracing of cultural mores, by necessity? It occurs to me that what many of you are talking about is that it makes you feel uncomfortable when some companies embrace shifting social mores, that they likely feel is reflective of the direction their customer base is going in, faster than other companies. I recall extremely similar conversations in the 1980's about the increase in black actors in commercials. At first, the companies that used black actors were "pandering to political correctness" but as time went on, the companies that DIDN'T use black actors became the conspicuous ones. People used to roll their eyes when there were black characters included in sitcoms or women included (as other than ornamentation) in financial or business advertising because it was seen as political manipulation or kowtowing.

Advertising is always going to be part of "culture wars", or what you might accurately call cultural evolution. Jump onto a cultural shift too soon and you're "politicizing your product". Jump onto it too late and you're a fossil, or worse, a bigot.

No doubt, marketing and advertising plays some role in these cultural shifts of opinion. It's complicated though.

(and I realize this is getting away from the google rainbow doodle, which is less problematic than the other similar marketing+ethics ventures I'm talking about)

I see it this way -- there is a DEMAND for products which "fix the world". People feel a totally reasonable responsibility to improve the world around them. Companies recongize that and market their products in a way designed to make you feel like your purchase is socially and ethically responsible. They want you to feel like you are fulfilling your ethical obligations to the world around you through your purchase. (there's a South Park episode that comes to mind, where people buy hybrid cars and then instantly get very self-superior and fall in love with the smell of their own farts)

One example that pops into mind is this service that is on the radio all the time around here... It's this grocery discount card that is marketed as helping the environment. Because if you use this card, you don't have to clip coupons. That's the whole reason their branding is 100% about being "environmentally friendly". Why? It's not because customers clipping coupons are singlehandedly destroying the environment. It's not because they give any money to environmental causes. It's just a sales gimmick.

(and why, btw, is the onus of change purely on the consumer rather than on the company producing the waste? It's because we all know they're only going to behave ethically when it's profitable -- we expect that if people love clipping coupons, the company isn't going to make an effort to stop printing them)

My company did the same thing... an internal survey indicated that most of us want the company to be more environmentally friendly. The response was to give everybody "WE'RE GOING GREEN" mugs (which I guess means we don't have to use paper cups?), and start a "walk to work" campaign. But it was in name only. The reality was that they held a weekly event where groups of employees walk around downtown during lunch while wearing "We're going green!" t-shirts. I'm pretty sure our levels of corporate waste were unaffected, but employee satisfaction went up. All they did was make us FEEL like they addressed the problem.

That Zizek talk I posted upthread says it well, I think... that we should be wary of products which seem to fulfill our "ethical duties", especially when those companies participate in the harm we're trying to address. Zizek gives an example of Tom's shoes, who at one point offered that for every pair of shoes you buy from them, they will give a pair to a kid in some third world country.

If we really squint at it, this is weird. Because those third world country conditions - where 10 year old kids are stitching together sneakers in some sweatshop in the Honduras -- aren't those conditions CREATED by companies like this? They can only give away a pair of shoes because their production costs are so low. Giving kids shoes is charitable, but it does nothing to address the actual conditions created by rampant capitalism. It prolongs the actual problem by being a false remedy. It's like they have included a half-assed apology for what they are doing as part of the price tag.