You would have to be living in a cave over the last couple of months not to be aware of the battle between Google and China.  Back in January, Google announced that they may pull out of the world’s largest Internet market — and that they would “stop censoring” search results, as is required by Chinese law.

Things got interesting yesterday when Google announced that they would no longer censor these search results.  According to the Wall Street Journal, yesterday:

“..the company shut down its censored mainland Chinese search engine, google.cn, and began redirecting Chinese-language search traffic to the uncensored google.com.hk.”

Let’s not start lauding Google as a good corporate citizen just yet.  Sure, they have the right to pull out of China just like the Chinese believe that they have the right to censor what their netizens see.  But if you take a closer look, you’ll see that Google badly trails the Chinese search engine, Baidu, plus in China, that the cash cow of Google, Ad Words, accounts for only four percent of their total revenue.

Pulling out may be a good decision for free speech, but when lauding the company’s stance, let’s remember that they are giving up only four cents on the dollar, and looking at an increasingly protectionist government creating and environment in which it will be harder for Google to grow.

As a point of comparison, I don’t see other companies pulling of out of China over human rights issues, for example.  General Motors needs China Right now.  So do most American car manufacturers.  I am pretty sure that they will keep their heads down when the larger debate of human rights comes up when U.S. and Chinese officials plan to meet in May.

Is Google doing the “right thing?”  Probably.  But let’s not forget that they initially agreed to submit to censorship when their entered the Chinese market.  It appears that the tipping point came when cyber attacks, originating in China, hacked into Google server, presumably attempting to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.  Google had the “smoking gun” and/or excuse to threaten to stop censoring search results.

Enough was enough.

Does Google stand to lose a lot in a market that has disappointed them?  Not so much.  All of this reminds me of the scene in “Pulp Fiction” when Harvey Keitel tells John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson (after cleaning up Marvin’s brains all over the back of the Chevy Nova), “Gentlemen, let’s not start [blanking] each others’ [blanks] just yet.”

So before we go awarding to the Nobel Prize to Eric Schmidt, let’s look at the fact that a) Google has been censoring all along, and b) they stand to lose little when the pull out and get blocked by the Internet “Great Wall of China.”

Interesting CNN report below – from the Chinese perspective.

Mark

It’s not just political candidates who are being thoroughly researched these days.  At a conference a couple of weeks ago, I sat next to a senior executive at one of the few remaining, solvent investment houses and the conversation drifted to social media.

Somehow, we got on the topic of hiring.  She flat out stated: “When I get my list of final candidate when hiring, the FIRST thing I do is Google them. And then I look up their profiles on Facebook.”

And this is not at all unusual.

I have said for years that Google’s largest step was not their IPO, but when their company name went from a noun to a verb.  Like Xerox did a few years ago.  But Google has indeed become part of our lives, our work, and an important tool for HR people.

Think about the hiring process.  I was an executive in the employment industry (beginning in the pre-Internet days) before we could Google someone, but I can promise you that, especially in a down economy, the front-line person whose job it is to go through a bazillion resumes is to carry out a search for the negative. To get through the pile, you usually start by eliminating people you don’t want so you can get to the people you do want.

As an applicant, your exercise is to put your best foot forward and make yourself look like you walk on water.  It’s a bit of a dance, but the rise of search engines and social media tools have changed the employment dynamic.  As you are pressing your suit and combing your hair, that HR person is likely doing an extensive online search on you.  So it’s important to think about the following:

1. What have I written out there (blogs, comments on other people’s sites) that I would not want someone to see?
2. What, if anything has been written or posted (like um…photographs) that I would not want someone to see?  And speaking of pictures, is there a Flick account out there that needs some editing?
3. Is my Facebook profile public?
4. Is my Twitter account readily identifiable?
5. What have I bookmarked on del.icio.us?

I could go on an on with other social media tools, but you get the picture.  Most employers are, by nature, cautious.  It used to be that they would get a chance to find out about you by asking tough questions during the interview.  Now, if you do not have good answers to the above, they may well already have some of the answers.

I am by no means saying that people should not be active on social media sites.   Just remember that what you write, the pictures you pose in, and the seemingly flippant comments you might make on someone else’s site are already in your employment profile.

Mark

Business Week’s recent article, “Do Reputation Management Services Work?” creates many more questions in mind mind than it solves. There is a lot that is missing from this article.

I get that Business Week is a business publication and one that does not necessarily focus on technology, but there is a lot that they either gloss over and get wrong. I’ll be post a TON more on online reputation management in coming days, but one of the disturbing sentences is:

Most reputation services work by tracking what written about a client on a site, then doing search engine optimization.”

To me, this is the epitome of oversimplification. The article presents a “Google problem,” not a “reputational problem.” What about gauging the reach and impact of the source that offers a positive or negative opinion on your brand or your issue? What about, if the mention is bad, developing a methodology for response? When do you “go nuclear?” When do you engage third-parties? And how do you do it all in a transparent fashion, not screwing it up like Edelman and Wal*Mart did?

These are some of the questions that I plan to blog about beginning this weekend. The good news is that online reputation management is something that is reaching the mainstream conciousness of the business world. The bad news, in my humble opinion, can be summed up by the following words in the article:

ReputationDefender, a two-year-old Menlo Park (Calif.) company that mainly markets to individuals, plans to introduce a service for companies that would cost a one-time fee of a few hundred dollars, according to founder Michael Fertik.

<Shudder>.

More to come.

Mark