7 replies to this topic

[eKstreme]

Via Boing Boing and TechCrunch:

The Google Health Ads blog posted an attempt to get healthcare companies to pay for ads to be placed on Sicko SERPs. From their post:

We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message. We help you connect your company’s assets while helping users find the information they seek.

That's right folks. Google is not a search engine, but a platform where various entities can educate each other. It's best if the education happens to be ads that add to Google's bottom line. As TechCrunch put it, "antagonizing Moore may well see Google become a larger target at a time the search giant is in the spotlight over its Double Click acquisition."

What do you think?

Pierre

[JohnMu]

I guess that's one way to do it ... Adwords as post-it notes in the supermarket of life. Just a couple of cents each .

But why did they choose Moore's "Sicko" to promote? Is it just because it's mainstream and controversial?

Smart marketing? People are writing about it, it's certainly working for Adwords. It's working.

John

[DonnaFontenot]

Personally, I'm not fond of Google using its muscle to sway public opinion or politicians, and then to do so while lining its pockets is just outrageous. It just feels all wrong. In a big, big, scary sort of way. I can't even describe how dangerous and wrong this all feels, but it's just one big blob of scariness that I don't like. How's that for an opinion?

[eKstreme]

Well, I've written before about how the pharma industry is actually nasty in how it invents diseases and how it markets drugs. No doubt, there is a lot of shady stuff happening (not always, but a lot), and I for one am happy Moore made the film. I haven't seen it yet, but no matter how extreme it is, it's an issue that needs to be brought to light. Incidentally, even CNN's checks of the film's data found little wrong.

So where does this put Google? It's a strong tide with lots of scientists and data going against the pharma industry. It's mainstream, and people generally support it (the universal healthcare debates of recent months come to mind). So with this tide about to hit properly, the pharma industry is going to go under pressure... and Google is telling them we can help you by paying us.

The other thing I find annoying in Google's blog post is the subtle reference to Get the Facts campaign Microsoft embarked on against Linux. The campaign didn't go down well with the Linux fans and a lot of Windows fans - it was lame, and in many respects, very badly done (like MS-sponsored reports find that MS products are better. Gee, you think?) Even with that experience, Google is coming out as offering a repeat the same mistake.

I've said enough

Pierre

[bragadocchio]

I'm looking forward to watching Sicko, and I was surprised by the positive reviews of the movie by media groups that have usually only had negative things to say about Michael Moore in the past.

Lot of postitive reviews for the movie:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sicko/

I would much rather see those dollars used to fix problems with the healthcare system, than used to advertise excuses and misinformation. Sad to see this from Google.

[SEOigloo]

When you break your foot and go to a pharmacy to get a brace for it and tell the pharmacist that you have to self-pay because you don't have health insurance, and the pharmacist replies,

"I know. I don't have any either. I can't afford it,"

you know your country's health care and economy are in BAD shape. This actually happened to me.

Miriam

[eKstreme]

And queue the mea culpa:

Not so good is that some readers thought the opinion I expressed about the movie Sicko was actually Google's opinion. It's easy to understand why it might have seemed that way, because after all, this is a corporate blog. So that was my mistake -- I understand why it caused some confusion.

(My emphasis)

So in short, this person is using a corporate blog to express personal opinion in public.

Then it has another foot-in-mouth moment:

advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.

Not really. It's only democratic if you have money. The little guy has no chance in advertising. And no, advertising is not dialogue, it's a one monologue.

Finally, I would like to note the lack of an apology. Obviously they think they did nothing wrong.

Having said all this, I really feel sorry for the person who posted the original post. They must be having a horrible weekend.

Pierre

[JohnMu]

Next time I'll read a bit mo(o)re before commenting - oops, sorry.

Looking at that blog a bit closer - isn't it just asking for these kinds of reactions?

"Google Health Advertising Blog"

What could they write about that won't cause a large part of the general population to get angry? As soon as you see "health" together with anything commercial you associate doctors and medical / pharmaceutical companies making money like crazy, and the average person having to pay whatever they decide to demand - because there is often no alternative.

I wonder how the New advisory group on health (which in my opinion sounds like a good idea) will fit into that?

John