Don’t be Evil… Says Who?

My previous blog about Pizza Hut’s viral marketing through social media in China brought Paromita and I into a very interesting discussion about ethics of social media marketing. Was it unethical of Pizza Hut not to disclose that it was the creator of the original post? If you were on the team that strategized and implemented this campaign, knowing that self-disclosure was not essential with the local law and industry regulations, plus absolutely tempted by the fact that the campaign would sell much better if “astroturfed”, what would you do? Where would you place ethics for an organization such as a corporation? What would be your priority, and at the same time, how would you define your bottom line financially and ethically?

How I wish there were a universal ruler that measures ethics, but after all, life is never a black-and-white, good-or-bad dichotomy. In the business world, ethics is a challenging issue full of gray areas, entangled with variables. Yet, for organizations, attempts must be made to answer these questions, because publics of interest care to know what kind of player you are in the market before they decide what kind of relationship they want to have with you. To help with the thoughts, I’d like to share Google’s word about ethics.

“Don’t be evil,”

says Google in their organizational philosophy. As a technology/service provider that integrates information, Google believes that it is unethical, evil to manipulate information. This ethics standard can be seen as an underlying motive of Google’s recent statement about leaving China (by closing its google.cn domain) when Gmail accounts of several pro-democracy dissidents’ were censored and hacked. While many thought it was a morally advantageous excuse to shut a poorly performing line of service (google.cn’s market share has been disappointing), many believed Google was a hero. As the picture below shows, some people even presented bouquets (as a way to say goodbye to the beloved) to Google’s Beijing office when the announcement was made.



I tend to believe that Google’s ethical practice in China has largely combined interest of itself and the key publics. Google’s revenues rely on a stable service that reflects natural unmanipulated information flow, which serves as a legitimate reason for Google to stick to the ethical standard. More importantly, Google’s key publics (users, investors, the press, etc.) expect to see consistent execution of “don’t be evil”, even when it means making clear the core values against the "Great Firewall of China" (Government PR efforts are much needed after that though.) It reassures them that Google is trustworthy, protects the brand, and in the long run, it helps cultivate the Chinese market. Thus, what Google did in China was both a moral bottom line and a moral high ground for its stakeholders and itself.

What I’ve learned from this incident is that, for organizations, ethics can be and should be strategic. Ethic standards should direct organizations to developing positive relationships with their key publics. Organizations need to decide the ethical DOs and DON’Ts in a big picture thinking about long term consequences, and in the eye of the publics on whom an organization's success or failure depends.