Google: Changing the Dynamic Between State and Private Enterprise

While the Los Angeles Times seems to be criticizing Google for their decision to stop censoring their websites in China, I, for one, am Google’s biggest cheerleader. The company has risked virtually all of its business in China in order to take a stand against censorship, redirecting people from Google.cn to the uncensored website in Hong Kong. It also has decided to open a Twitter account in China against Chinese laws, emphasizing their willingness to fight against the unfair laws of the government preventing the Chinese people from accessing useful information.

The risks that Google faces go far beyond simply being banned from China as a search engine and an email server. Google’s ventures in the country are numerous, following Google’s mission statement to “to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.” With these ambitions, Google had brought to China many of the same information-sorting technologies that we enjoy here in the United States, including the incredibly popular Gmail with Googledocs. The company also had high hopes to introduce a line of smart phones that many Chinese are increasingly relying on for surfing and searching the Web. Google has even been giving away its Android technology to cell phone makers in order to establish their presence in this market and to pass the savings onto producers. However, many of Google’s Chinese partners have been put under pressure to pull out of deals with the search engine company since its refusal to abide by Chinese laws of censorship. Some have described this as a “tightrope act” with Google balancing laws with business ventures, working around Chinese regulations but still trying to maintain a hold on the smartphone market in the country.

Google’s tactics have drawn the attention of business people and political minds alike. It has been studied by Douglas Paal, vice president of the Varnegie Endowment for International Peace and a senior advisor on Asian affairs in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. It is also a topic of debate in the White House circles. According to National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer, Google had informed the White House of its decision to end its own censorship in China. While many hoped that Google would simply pull out of China in order to maintain a more positive relationship, the fact that Google has decided to play hardball and fight against Beijing should send a much-needed message to the Chinese government that it is simply “too difficult to do business in China.”

But this is not simply a fight over business practices. This is a battle that has been fought between nations in the past, between the people and their governments for decades. This is the fight to free speech and freedom to information. Classic novels such as Animal Farm and 1984 have demonstrated to the Western world the importance of information and its power over a people. Whoever holds knowledge, holds dominion. In mainland China today, the government controls what information its people have access to by controlling the channels of information. With restricted access to search engines and news sources, as well as to social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, mainland Chinese are unable to learn credible information about current events – especially those involving the government. In a recent move, Google has opened up a Twitter feed on their webpage that lifted the 9-month hiatus of accessibility to the micro-blogging website. According to the LA Times, “The tweets do not show up for all searches, but only for terms that appear to be popular on Twitter. On Thursday morning, that included discussions on such taboo subjects as how to circumvent China's Internet firewall, why Google decided to exit China and a vaccine scandal unfolding in central China.”

Thanks to Google’s information organizing, citizens of mainland China are getting a taste of what sorts of information are out in the world that they have been kept from them by their government. This is a tremendous moment in history. A business corporation has decided to take on one of the most powerful nations in the world at the core of their domestic policy. Google’s attack on China, while it may prove to be detrimental to their business ventures in the country, challenges two important aspects that make China so successful on the international stage. First, it attacks Beijing’s ability to manage the lives of each of its citizens in a way that is both efficient and beneficial to the country as a whole. As a communist government, Beijing has the ability to organize Chinese citizens and to keep them from revolt and revolution by controlling the information they receive, as well as controlling their access to income and social change. This seems like the sort of thing we find in fiction, but the Google vs. China battle has brought to light what has been overlooked for centuries. China’s ability to maintain its Great Firewall and other harsh restrictions on businesses is possible because of its attractiveness as a market. With such a large population, the opportunity to operate in China is a tremendous benefit for any multinational corporation. Many would sacrifice, as Google had, on their normal business operations just to get a share of the Chinese market. However, what Google has done by fighting back is it has shown the world the difficulties of doing business in China. Perhaps now, others will not be so willing to make the necessary sacrifices to cooperate with Beijing.

The wake of Google’s stance has already begun spreading to other companies. GoDaddy.com, one of the largest internet webpage servers in the world, has decided to stop offering new China domain names. Will other companies follow their lead soon? Who will be daring enough to take the stand that Google has against one of the more powerful governments in the world? The steps already taken have begun to pave a new path at the intersection between international relations and global marketing.

Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Globalization: A Return to Blogging With a Focus on Coca-Cola and South Africa

It has been nearly a year since my last blog post, and I feel that it is high time I started my studies once again. In the ten month hiatus between this post and the last, I have continued my studies at the University of Southern California in international relations and global marketing, focusing on the relationship between the two disciplines by studying the effects of multinational corporations on the countries in which they operate. By approaching this topic from its two opposite sides (the first being from the perspective of the marketers working at multinational corporations, the second being from the perspective of the countries affected by the entrance of multinational corporations), I have had several advantages in my studies. As a global marketing student, I am more informed on the social issues and politics affecting business transactions than my peers. As an international relations scholar, I bring a kind of optimism about the spread of cultures across the world into classrooms that are caught up in the negative aspects of globalization. As such a contradictory pupil, I hope to bring my unique appreciation of this topic to A Global Opus, so that viewers may understand both sides to this coin.

With this in mind, the focus of this blog post is on the international corporate giant, Coca-Cola, and its current business ventures in South Africa. Coca-Cola is the number one most valuable brand in the world according to Interbrand. It operates in practically every country, bringing with it the taste, feel, and design of an American product and the functionalities of an American-based business. In each of these countries, Coca-Cola focuses on making its products relevant and appreciated by the local residents. Whether this means changing the pronunciation of the name in Asian countries so that the characters represent the ideals of the company, or simply changing the name of their product to be “Coca-Cola Lite” instead of “Diet Coke,” Coca-Cola marketing managers are hard at work maintaining a global brand.

Part of this global branding process involves promoting a positive image of the company itself. As many individuals around the world are suspicious of the spread of Western companies into their unique cultures, it is the responsibility of marketing managers to create solutions to this problem. In other words, it is no longer enough to simply sell a product in another country – you have to stand up to harsh criticisms with evidence of genuineness and positivism. One way that many multinational corporations are responding to anti-globalization protests is by developing programs for Corporate Social Responsibility. According to their published fact sheet, “In 2007, The Coca-Cola Company and The Coca-Cola Foundation made charitable contributions of $99 million to community initiatives worldwide.” Among many of their recent initiatives include a worldwide approach to sustainability and decreasing environmental impact. In separate countries, such as China and Greece, Coca-Cola has held separate regional programs to address more local needs.

As masters of global marketing, the Coca-Cola Company recognizes the advantages of international events. The one that seems to spark their interest as of late is the FIFA World Cup to be held in South Africa this summer. With undeniable presence in the region already, Coca-Cola is maximizing this opportunity by working alongside the Special Olympics to host the Unity Cup. To be held on the same pitch that hours later will host a FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match, the Unity Cup will bring football (Americans, read: soccer) legends and other celebrities to the field to play alongside Special Olympics athletes. The moment will truly be a special one for Special Olympic athletes and their World Cup counterparts alike.

Coca-Cola’s strategic relationships have been a key part of their success. Since 1968, Coca-Cola has worked in partnership with the Special Olympics. They are also official sponsors of the FIFA World Cup, with advertising at every game. It seems only good business sense to sponsor these events. Among the reasons why Coca-Cola has chosen to participate in football tournaments is the game’s ability to, “bring together people from all walks of life,” according to CEO Timothy Shriver. Thus it would seem that the Coca-Cola Company promotes togetherness and unity across all borders, whether they be country borders or social segmentations.

Still, there are many who view Coca-Cola and other global brands as damaging to the cultural fiber of their countries. Companies who share the blunt of these criticisms are McDonald’s and the Walt Disney Company, who seek to spread their influence across multiple continents. Yet all of these companies engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs to improve their relationship with the countries they enter and to attempt to gain the trust of their consumers. Do these programs work? Or are they a waste of money? It would seem that spending this money would improve the brand image, but does it really make products sell faster? Ultimately – does sponsoring an event like the Unity Cup mean that your company is socially responsible and cares about its consumers, or does it simply mean that you are using the plight of others to advertise yourself in a positive light? Can CSR measures be seen as anything but selfish?

Regardless of the implications of CSR practices of multinational corporations, many of these efforts do make a positive difference in local communities. Coca-Cola’s partnership with the FIFA World Cup helps bring countries together through athletics. Their work with the Special Olympics helps make these games possible and allows people with disabilities to be able to compete athletically and to accomplish something incredible. Other companies also have positive impacts. Take for example the McDonald’s Corporation. They work with the Ronald McDonald House Charities to improve the lives of children around the world. While it is true that not every CSR program put in place is as successful as those mentioned above, it cannot be denied that some of these programs are actually beneficial. So while it may be simply a way to generate a positive brand image about the company, if the company puts in the crucial effort and funding to make these programs effective and successful, it can be argued that this is proof of the genuineness that they seek to portray.