I've been following this whole "Google encourages anti-Sicko ad buys" thing out of the corner of my eye, but now that it seems to be all but wrapped-up, I have a few thoughts.
Here's what happened: On Friday, a Google Ads "account planner" named Lauren Turner wrote a blog post inviting health care companies, which she posits are surely feeling real or indirect bruising from Michael Moore's Sicko, to contact her about Google's "issue management campaigns." Turner did not specifically say, "Health care companies should combat the Michael Moore Effect by buying text ads on searches for Sicko," but that's basically what was inferred by the many (mainly tech-focused) bloggers who picked up the story.
Google really shot themselves in the foot with that whole "make money without doing evil" thing--it was basically equivalent to asking the anti-Capitalist wing of the blogosphere to stand on constant watch for even the slightest sign of moral impropriety. Thus, a simple marketing message turns into a scandal, which reaches its peak when BoingBoing runs the story with the headline "Google to HMOs: pay us and we'll defuse 'Sicko'".
On Sunday, Turner, in response to blog outcry, issued a weak "apology", in which she clarified that the original post represented her views and not necessarily Googles, but basically maintained her original point, which was "advertising is an effective medium for handling challenges that a company or industry might have." Turner continued:
Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore's movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.
This apparently turned the incident into a big enough deal to warrant coverage by The Hollywood Reporter, which in turn prompted me to try to break it down and determine what, if anything, this series of events actually means.
Going on a Technorati search (which, admittedly, may not be the best form of research), it seems as though this story was of most interest to blogs about blogs--at the very least, it hasn't made much noise in the movie blogosphere. That in itself is significant, I think, because at the end of the day, this whole thing has the potential to spark questions about whether or not there's a fundamental difference between art that aims to function as ideological statement, and advertising that aims to protect ideology.
In other words, if this little roadbump will have lasting impact, it's because it suggests that advertising--particularly, Google's text-base advertising, which obliterates any illusion of seperation between medium and message--is as valid a vehicle for ideology as a film (which, in this case, is ultimately itself a corporate product). This could be fertile territory for debate--if Google wasn't already selling ads for the purpose of "image management." The fact that the practice is already in progress sort of makes the issue moot. A lot of bloggers who jumped on this story seem to have this attitude, like, "Is nothing sacred?" Well, no--at the very least, Michael Moore is not entitled to have his message (through which he earns a profit) protected from the paid objections of his detractors, who are essentially just trying to protect their own ability to make a profit.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but for me, it boils down to this: if Moore has the right to spend Harvey Weinstein's money to make a film in which the flip side of his argument is not represented, then why don't the people whose business could be affected by the film have the right to spend their own money to respond?
Originally posted on:
SpoutBlog