CEO is wrong to play politics with Google's brand

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has officially thrown his weight behind Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race. I find it a bit unseemly and unfair to the employees at Google, even though many probably support Obama.

I felt the same about then eBay CEO Meg Whitman taking a public stand for John McCain, though at least she was on her way out of the eBay CEO chair at the time.

Google, as a company, has done well to take a neutral stance, inviting both the Republican and Democratic candidates to speak at the Google campus, and providing technology infrastructure at the nominating conventions for both parties.

But Schmidt, as CEO, has done something different. His personal brand is tied up in Google. Just as McCain misused Whitman's name in the second presidential candidate debate, so, too, will Obama (or the media, as it already has) use Schmidt's Google credentials to imply that Google, the company, favors Obama's presidential aspirations. Google employees, meanwhile, have no say in the matter. This is somewhat dubious, even where unions are concerned, but it has no place in a corporation.

It would be different if this were Schmidt espousing a particular political cause that has direct financial ramifications for Google, like Net neutrality, but this is not the case, and it's unfair to his employees to tie up the Google brand in any political party, because a political party's platform includes all sorts of issues that have no place in the message of a technology company.

The same holds true for churches and nonprofits. People can have a political opinion on a candidate. Apolitical organizations should not.

Let Schmidt commit his cash to Obama, but he shouldn't be committing the Google brand to either political candidate. This is what he does when he officially endorses Obama.

[jrepenning]

So, you're not impressed by his explicit statement that this is his personal opinion, not the company's?

[Savido]

Sorry Matt, I don't think Mr. Schmidt came with a bucket full of Google's brand to officially paint "Change we need" with it. He has stated that he's doing this personally and it just happened as "natural evolution" from his role as an informal adviser. By the way, why do you condemn Eric despite that McCain has got support of at least two CEO? It's better to state that "CEOs are wrong to play politics with their companies' brand" instead of solely quoting Google only.

[ltk01]

Schmidth shows lack of good judgement in this matter.

[vip_m]

What in Google's motto of "do no evil" don't you understand, Matt? Picking Palin/McCain with their rumor-mongering, country-dividing and race-baiting precludes Google from siding with 'em.

[odubtaig]

It's "don't be evil", not "pick the lesser of two evils". Y'all are going to be so disappointed when it finally dawns that Obama is, above all, a politician.

[sigzero]

You must be kidding. Compare that to Obama/Biden outright lying, illegal campaign contributions etc.

[Sleek-Polar_Bear]

I think you don't quite see the great change coming and that everyone wants to be part of it.. They want it recorded as to where they stood on this uncharted course of our history. That includes titans of industry and homeless people. The head of Google is no exception. And how lightly you dismiss the decision of the head of Ebay to declare. Mr. McCain commented on her support recently so it did not go unnoticed and that is a good thing, sir.

[Penguinisto]

Even though the CEO did say (to his credit) that his endorsement is a personal opinion, he did use his position at Google as a soapbox to stand on and give a political endorsement. If you or I were to publicly state a candidate endorsement, I sincerely doubt that CNN would rush to post the fact online, since we're obviously lacking the position of prominence that comes with being a CEO of a global-sized corporation.

If Politicians reference 'em, meh... they're politicians - we expect that. But CEOs should be a bit more careful.

I wonder how the McCain/Paul/etc supporters who work for Google feel right now?

/P

[kennonk]

As long as Mr. Schmidt framed his comments as his personal preference/opinion and not an official Google Corporate endorsement I don't really see the problem. Every citizen of this country is entitled to their opinion and the Bill of Rights protects their right to express it. The problem here is that people would actually care about what a technology company CEO with basically zero experience on the topic thinks regarding the presidential race. If the tipping point in your judgment as to who should be President is that the Google CEO, or almost any CEO really, backs Obama or McCain you are most likely the kind of person who isn't going to bother showing up to the polls to vote anyway. It is like someone who decides on who to vote for based on a song they've heard or a commercial they've seen...kind of silly. No offense to Mr. Schmidt but who really cares about his presidential pick? And it doesn't really take a lot of guts to back the 8-10 point favorite a couple weeks before the election. Where was he 6 months ago when sound bites of Reverend Wright were on every channel screaming "God Damned America" This reads more like another corporate ass-kissing maneuver to me.

[arjenlentz]

Yea. It doesn't matter if a high-profile person says "what follows is just a personal opinion" as the audience they have is due to their position already, plus people can't separate the person from the entity they usually represent anyway.

Perhaps Mr Schmidt got a bit excited, or decided this was the one time to speak out. Understandable, perhaps, but I do take your (Matt) point that it may not have been the best judgement call. Then again, CEOs are human too, and that's a good thing! If he feels so strongly about this, perhaps he should (continue) to speak out. Of course, it does have affects on Google, and also politicians and media will abuse and spin. It's not that pretty. But that's all predictable and thus known; perhaps he weighed it, discussed it with peers, and decided it was worth it anyway?

[meh130]

I fail to see how McCain "misused" Whitman in the debate. He was asked what kind of people he might consider as a Secretary of the Treasury, and mentioned "someone like" Whitman would be a good choice.

Treasury secretaries typically come from industry. Rubin, Poulson, etc. Whitman currently is retired. Obama mentioned Warren Buffett, who is a current active CEO.

[logictrap]

If he states he supports Obama there's nothing wrong with that. If he states Google supports Obama it's a problem.

[savvydude]

Schmidt's actions smack of another overly-wrought, egotist feeling the need to pound the political pulpit. While most employees everywhere are banned from advocating a political or religious stand while on the job, those at the top simply feel no restraint. Their employees have to just take it, and the customers who don't agree with the political posturing are left offended. It is bad business and poor judgement.

Yet, it seems Schmidt just doesn't care in any case.

[themainbreeze]

Google's employees get paid and then some - Their opinions are personal. If they don't like it they can go look for other jobs.

[oce.net]

I'm unsure if in this specific case there is absolute proof whether or not Mr. Schmidt overstepped his bounds and put Google forth as partisan political tool. However, whether you agree with this decision or not, the Google leadership has been willing to officially put Google forward in the political realm in the past.

"Our Position on California's No on 8 campaign"
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

Whatever your side of that particular issue- it is fact that the Google leadership will certainly push the Google name into politics- politics that is at least somewhat irrelevant to the life of the corporation; it's users; and it's shareholders.

Would I have done the same in Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Brin's place? Possibly. That decision would be a balance of how much it would effect those around me that I was responsible to- and how important this political situation was- and how relevant/effective the use of the brand owned by the corporation vs. the brand of my name would be.

It is a somewhat tough decision in my mind- but for those at either sides of the spectrum- this decision should be far more clear cut.

Oh- and no matter what- I do think it was a tad bit sill- but that's more because I hate politics in general.

[bhinca]

The shoe has been on the other foot for decades. Republicans have been scorched for being in bed with CEOs and corporations. And now, you've got the CEO of what is fast becoming the largest information gatherer in the world aligning with soon-to-be next president. Google is always getting written up in this article or that about privacy issues. And they've been asked to testify before Congress on the subject.

Everyone's okay with that? I'd expect Obama, of all people, to have zero conflicts of interest with corporations. I thought that was one of the Democrat hallmarks.

The lesson here is, if oil companies are in bed with politicians financially, that's atrocious, unethical behavior. But if leading technology companies, with untold mountains of data about millions of people, have close alliances, that's a shrug of the shoulders. Disappointing.

[oce.net]

In reference to the previous comment.
Funny thing about the Democrats- once upon a time- there was a little thing called a Political Machine- which was system used by Republicans- but absolutely owned by the Democrats.
No matter which side of line your on- we need to remember that both Republicans and Democrats have basically done every dirty trick the other has pulled at one point or another in history.
Keeping an eye on them all is the only way to go- even if your going to vote the party line.

[bhinca]

I agree. Example: Republicans are routinely accused of buying elections through their corporate donations, and resulting advertising spend. Salon.com went on and on about Mitt Romney on this issue at one point, and then, oh wait, he lost! Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been raking in the donations at a level never before seen. And the crickets chirp...

[tacit]

*blink*

Um...so how come when the CEO of Merrill Lynch, the CEO of Cisco, and the CEO of FedEx endorsed McCain, I didn't read about it in CNET? Is it only a CEO endorsement of Obama that is "unseemly" and "unfair"? *rolls eyes*

[oce.net]

Well- Merrill Lynch and FedEx are definitely not the same thing as Google- and there are very few CEOs in general in the same sort of position over the tech world as Mr. Schmidt. So I guess that answers your question.

Schmidt is a CEO of a tech company- tech is what CNET covers- he's a major figure in the world of tech- and business in general.

[Penguinisto]

So, err, Cisco isn't a tech company?

Just curious as to when that happened is all...

/P

[stskhalsa]

I'm a political independent. This article is either desperately naive or disingenuous or both. Myriad CEO's on all sides of political fences have been publicly and privately supporting candidates for most of American political history. I don't recall you speaking out against the PRIOR recent tech example, Meg Whitman, when she publicly supported McCain, which indicates that YOU are promoting your own political agenda, albeit in an indirect, cowardly and slimy way.

Come to think of it, I don't recall you speaking out against corporate-exec war profiteering when hundreds of billions of dollars were funneled into the pockets of a company (formerly) controlled by the current US president of vice, such company then taking its profits and relocating to the Persian Gulf to avoid paying US taxes (and, probably later, US courts...)

It's despicable to use this kind of headline to promote your own political agenda while pretending to decry another one.

[Mr. Dee]

As a journalist, you have no business deciding what another person should or should not do.

[bhinca]

This is an opinion piece, not an article.

[oce.net]

Isn't this column more of an editorial- which is a perfectly legitimate thing to write- and I'm not sure where you get "deciding what another person should or should not do." from this article...

[odubtaig]

So what puts you in such a privileged position?

[oce.net]

I'm not sure you can really compare the effect and power of Meg Whitman, alone, to the effect and power of Schmidt and the Google brand.

[bhinca]

Completely agree. Doesn't take much use of Google's web search itself to see countless articles about concerns over Google and its users' privacy.