Colour me cynical, but when a corporation is under fire from consumers, regulators and activists, a soppy and heartstring-tugging ad is exactly what the doctors order.
It is literally Google saying, "Oh look, cute puppies!" when faced with a global barrage of criticism about its disdain for user privacy or its own past promises.
a. Google isn't just another "large consumer company"
b. Google being "always under fire" by consumers, regulators and activists is no reason to start letting it off the hook. In fact, it should be the converse.
I'm sure the people (read: individuals) who thought up this ad and executed it had their hearts in the right place. Just enjoy it for what it is. Not everything has to be viewed with such cynicism.
a) They aren't? Why not?
b) You seem to be changing the nature of your objection. First you imply that they're under fire now because of privacy issues, then when GP points out they're always under fire for something you say that's no excuse to let them off the hook.
If you believe they're releasing this specifically because they're under fire, by that criteria it's never OK for them to release a "feelgood" ad.
As I recall, Google has been releasing feelgood ads for years - has it all been to nefarious purpose? They're a large consumer company. They're advertising - which includes tugging heartstrings if it gets them more customers.
>>Google has been releasing feelgood ads for years
Starting with "don't be evil." Whether Google has lived up to those lofty goals in the intervening years of working with the Chinese Government, the NSA, etc., I will leave to the reader to decide.
A bit of a deflection. My point is that advertising is released to advertise (a brand in this case) and there doesn't necessarily need to be nefarious purpose - beyond the basic manipulation of emotions to sell product.
Google's done several commercials, well before any of the recent furor. One of the first was "Parisian Love" which aired during the Superbowl in 2010. The more memorable one was "Dear Sophie" in 2011 which got a lot more coverage, and I believed that aired in the US as well. I'm not as cynical as you are about Google's motives here, but i would think that airing ads in the US would have far more of an impact on the US public and regulators than a foreign language ad in India.
Bang on! I don't think you are being cynical, you are being true! People across borders should stop being emotional over an advertisement by a multinational corporation. If they really have to become emotional, there is plenty of literature on this topic in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. And if they even want to take actions, there are many NGOs trying to ease up the visa procedure, raising awareness among the people etc.
Talking about the technology, I think some years down the line all this will become some kind of "ambient technology", if you know what I mean.
Do you prefer the generic "people fiddling with their devices on a sunny day, female voice playing buzzword bingo in the background"? Props for Google for being ballsy.
I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.
I don't see how in any way Google is being "ballsy" here. It is a safe, soppy and relationships-oriented ad - in what world can that ever be "ballsy"?
Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment.
That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it [0], suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value.
IMHO, there is nothing ballsy about an ad; at the end of the day it is profit vs you. There are selling, you are getting emotional and consuming, exactly what they want. :)
Well, some people tend to interpret in whatever way it suits them, but I don't think I meant evil when I said multi-national. If you get it, I was just referring to the scale of the company.
I understand what you mean, but these two conflicts are nowhere near the same scale. Social rights issues have a lot of work done by lots of dedicated people over decades, until they reach a tipping point. A for-profit corporation, no matter how good at marketing, will not stake their financial health by going against massive consensus, they just don't have the political/financial freedom to do that. If they had to pick between India and Pakistan in an actual war, they would take sides according to their interest or get out of both, but that's about it.
Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.
No, I agree. In no way did I mean to suggest that Google was going to take the role of a UN with teeth, to mediate between different countries.
It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)
Why is it such a huge revelation that advertising is created to benefit a business?
You've got a beautifully produced and captivating video, which makes no secret about advertising something. People enjoy it and engage with it, but then suddenly catch themselves: "Oh no! What if this advertisement was created... for profit?"
To created purely to give pleasure to people is one thing, it is an act of generosity and altruism, if it is done to manipulate, then it is something very different. PR and advertising are manipulations.
The worst thing is to see something like this, allow it to emotionally effect one, then discover at the end that is is a corporate manipulation. Dunno about others, but that makes me feel used.
>>The worst thing is to see something like this, allow it to emotionally effect one, then discover at the end that is is a corporate manipulation.
This is literally the entire advertising industry's purpose. If you think any single advertisement is not solely intended to trick you into equating good feelings with a particular brand, product, or person then you are very naive.
There is no such thing as advertisement that is made just "to give pleasure to people", even when it comes from Google.
Yeah, I agree. here I am watching the ad, getting all emotional (I have some family in Pakistan, who moved their out of their own volition frankly) and I suddenly realize, wow I fell for this nauseatingly sweet ad!
You got me (almost) Google. And since when did they start showing ads in India?
What would be interesting to know is if India is basically virgin territory as far as Google (marketing) ideology. In other words, is Google free to start from scratch there, without (some clearly outlined) lofty promises?
This is not the first ad Google made. Do you remember all those Chrome ads about a family? This one just happens to be even more melodramatic. Nothing sinister going on here.
It is literally Google saying, "Oh look, cute puppies!" when faced with a global barrage of criticism about its disdain for user privacy or its own past promises.