You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2010.
by Paul Rogers
Wow. Now this is what I call a big story.
Someone very important at Google is very angry with the Chinese government.
Over the past 48hrs in all but outright accusation, Google has declared that the Chinese authorities masterminded a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” on its corporate infrastructure. Apparently the attack, which “resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google”, was replicated on at least twenty other major companies in Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical industries.
As a result, Google is reviewing its position in China and refusing to continue to self-censor its Chinese search content, directly flouting previous agreements with the Government. Here’s an exerpt from Google’s own blogpost on the subject:
“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered, combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web, have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”
I doubt this is an empty threat – Google’s revenues from China are marginal anyway and the company’s hardly strapped for cash, so why not take them on?
Props to Google then for taking a stand. This seems like a victory for free speech and in the short term, I’m sure it is. But there’s a bigger implication to consider. If Google does shut down and withdraw from China, then they’ll leave quite a hole behind. And the promise of access to an expanding market of more than 338m web browsers (more than the entire US population) is such a whopping great carrot, you can’t help but wonder whether Google’s successor might find they are “continually distracted” away from the whole issue of government censorship. Put another way, as an expat friend of mine succinctly notes amid a typically lively discussion on his PekingDuck blog, “Whoever it is, they’ll have to sell out. Business as usual.”
Earlier today Reuters looked under the political hood of a few other major internet players in China and made a few calls on the chances of them rallying behind Google on this issue. It sure is lonely at the top. Let’s hope Google toughs it out.
by Louise Wylie
Since last year has been dubbed the year of the social media explosion and the world became fascinated and addicted to Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook et al, I can’t help wondering what advancements 2010 has in store for us.
Many are predicting a full scale, ‘post-media revolution’ where the serious value-added business potential of social media is unearthed and utilised by organisations of all size and type albeit at the decline of traditional mediums including print press and TV. Have to say, I welcome that with open arms since one of the main challenges as I see it, is to turn the engagement power harnessed within social media principles, into a genuine revenue generator for businesses.
And it can and has been done for a far cheaper investment than is required to run even a medium weight advertising campaign…but we’ll save that debate for another day!
Ok, so some early adopters have already tried and succeeded in their use of social media (let’s be honest, some have also failed spectacularly) when it comes to the utilisation of online communities to benefit their brand, but there is still a very common and widespread perception of social media being mainly for fun and actually quite pointless, especially in the eyes of some more traditional business leaders.
Case in point for the commercial viability of social media: Facebook’s Christmas number one success with the Rage Against X Factor campaign. More than a million joined an online group and the administrators managed to influence behaviour by consumer’s not just joining a group but spurred into action by buying the infamous tune! I wonder how much money was made and lost by this ‘bit of fun’.
So, how will those remaining sceptical businessmen and women be converted? The very name ‘social media’ has in fact been damaging to it’s potential to be regarded as an impacting tactic to be included in business marketing strategies. ‘Social’ automatically conjures up images of frivolity and anything but serious work!
A re-naming could well be on the cards to help redress the balance and imbue the inherent value of engaging with consumers in a way that allows brands to listen to their customers and increase their bottom line at the same time. But what will the new name be? Suggestions include: ‘Identity Marketing’, ‘Identity Strategy’ or even ‘Influence Marketing’. The latter certainly adds credibility especially for demonstrating the ability of social media to deliver real behavioural change.
It will be interesting to see if the new name, whatever it ends up being, influences marketing directors to sit up and take notice, and more importantly, action.
Whatever the motivation, I believe we will see an abundance of businesses seeking support for the creation of their new social media policy and advice on how to implement and integrate with their online and offline marketing strategies. Canny marketing directors are bound to see the sense in embracing the craze now that we’re moving beyond the ‘trial and error’ phase and start apportioning a slice of their budget into, well, whatever it ends up being called!
