3 ms·

"Don't be evil", using primary colors in the logo to bring that kindergarten familiarity, fun doodles, a dumb funny movie and quirky April Fools projects were a

by lalos 6y ago

"Don't be evil", using primary colors in the logo to bring that kindergarten familiarity, fun doodles, a dumb funny movie and quirky April Fools projects were a great marketing strategy to distract your average person in lowering their guard and feel safe to give all the data to an advertisement company. I wonder if they currently teach this case in marketing/PR classes.

smabie 6y ago
I mean, I don't think that was the intention. I'm sure Page and Brin really wanted to be different when they started. But as a company grows, the vision of the founders is excised and replaced with the same shit found in all large corporations. To be clear, I don't think Google or any other large company is evil. It's just the way things turn on, how the incentives are structured.
- S_A_P 6y ago
  I think that’s a great way to put it. Each decision to grow the business is not necessarily bad or evil. As google has grown and acquired market share they leveraged that to spur more growth and market share. They act in their own best interest. It’s not necessarily evil, but selfish motives and evil sometimes look a lot alike.
asveikau 6y ago
I am sure tons of people here know Google history better than I. What was the year they fully turned on the advertising spigot? I feel like in the first few years it was not yet an advertising giant. Wikipedia says they had small text ads in 2000, but seems to imply that the advertising didn't get really huge for them until after IPO. Correct me if I am wrong, I was not following super closely in those years. But that would provide a few years of "not being evil".
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Aquisition of Doubleclick, in my book, 2007, though Google ads preexisted that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising
  - asveikau 6y ago
    Ah yes. And I remember when doubleclick arrived on the scene, it was a popular opinion to say they were evil, or sneaky, big brother like. Google bought them and somehow the reputation lifted.

by lalos 6y ago

smabie 6y ago

I mean, I don't think that was the intention. I'm sure Page and Brin really wanted to be different when they started. But as a company grows, the vision of the founders is excised and replaced with the same shit found in all large corporations. To be clear, I don't think Google or any other large company is evil. It's just the way things turn on, how the incentives are structured.

S_A_P 6y ago
I think that’s a great way to put it. Each decision to grow the business is not necessarily bad or evil. As google has grown and acquired market share they leveraged that to spur more growth and market share. They act in their own best interest. It’s not necessarily evil, but selfish motives and evil sometimes look a lot alike.

asveikau 6y ago

I am sure tons of people here know Google history better than I. What was the year they fully turned on the advertising spigot? I feel like in the first few years it was not yet an advertising giant. Wikipedia says they had small text ads in 2000, but seems to imply that the advertising didn't get really huge for them until after IPO. Correct me if I am wrong, I was not following super closely in those years. But that would provide a few years of "not being evil".

dredmorbius 6y ago
Aquisition of Doubleclick, in my book, 2007, though Google ads preexisted that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising
- asveikau 6y ago
  Ah yes. And I remember when doubleclick arrived on the scene, it was a popular opinion to say they were evil, or sneaky, big brother like. Google bought them and somehow the reputation lifted.