Google's Clever Branding Move

Google's recent lambasting of China is a perfect example of "negative comparative branding" -- a technique that I revealed two weeks ago, in the post "2009's Biggest Branding Successes!"

In that post, I pointed out that the U.S. health insurance industry used "comparative negative branding" in order to scuttle the public option. Because that industry had a horrible "brand" as the result of a truly horrible set of products and business practices, the only way it could fight against a proposal to change its business model was to change the focus of the discussion.

The health insurance industry therefore spent hundreds of millions of dollars to emphasize the negative qualities of a brand that was even weaker than their own -- the federal government. This worked because the brand is even weaker and has even worse attributes, especially among conservative voters.

Predictably, some people were offended at my rather obvious observations, and rather than trying to draw the business lesson from them, preferred to fantasize that I was working some sort of political agenda.

Such comments are, of course, illustrations of why "comparative negative branding" is so effective. Because it always appeals to the pre-conceived notions of the intended audience, it creates a knee-jerk reaction, automatically changing the focus away from the problems inherent in one brand and towards the problems inherent in another.

And that's exactly what Google has done. Google's overall brand strategy has always used "comparative negative branding" -- primarily using Microsoft's brand reputation as the "evil empire" in order to make Google look comparatively benign.

However, over time Google's brand has started to take on some of its own "evil empire" attributes. It's widely seen in the online marketing community as a monopolist, and some of its planned expansions -- like its online library of books -- have been widely criticized by authors and content creators.

Google was in the middle of a brand crisis last week, with growing complaints about the company's ability to provide service to its new smartphone -- a product on which the company has based its future expansion. Google needed to do something quickly to distract attention from its failure to launch a highly important product.

And then, right in the middle of the brouhaha, Google is subject to a major hacker attack, possibly compromising their data. For an online firm that's the branding equivalent of DEFCON 5.

So what does Google do?

"Comparative negative branding" to the rescue! What better way to position yourself away from an growing perception that you're an "evil empire" than by comparing yourself to a real "evil empire," in this case the Chinese government?

Voila! Suddenly the story of Google stumbling in the smartphone market was dead and the story about Google's security problems suddenly turned into a story about how Google is a crusader for political freedom. Brilliant!

And yet, what was really said? Nothing, really. Google issued an empty threat because if you're going to do business in China, you have to follow Chinese law. And Google was never a big player in China, and not likely ever to be one because China sets up business rules and laws that favor Chinese firms.

However, because Google's move plays into pre-conceived notions about political freedom and oppression and the Internet's role in that dynamic, almost everyone is missing the real story: Google's continuing use of "comparative negative branding" to define themselves positively.

Of course, the Sales Machine readers who got caught up in the politics of the healthcare branding example probably missed the point of Google's branding move as well. When you look at the business world through political glasses, it's very difficult to see these situations clearly.