I was very disappointed to see Google trying to innovate by legislation. Why should a company with the best engineering talent resort to such games?
Also, don't underestimate the impact of the shifting demographics of internet/privacy awareness.
Google succeeded because it had a simple product (search) that just worked, and because its ads just worked. Schmidt has had nothing to do with most of Google's revenue and I think he's more likely to screw things up by approving unwise M&A activity or making ill-conceived public statements than he is to somehow usher in a new era of corporate growth.
Also, I question anyone who is too gung-ho about a political candidate; particularly anyone who does it from his/her public corporate podium. It suggests that the person is overly attentive to the sort of base, clannish activities of humans, taking sides, being in the "in crowd". Such behavior often correlates with success in bureaucratic organizations, but that's not the person you want as CEO.
Anyway, back to your point. I agree on what you said. But the problem as I see it is that Google (the company) is not hurt by its CEO's gaffes. Facebook is a lot worse, and it's still going strong (and the boycott was a total failure). Google itself is going strong: it's becoming harder and harder to stop using it.
So sure, if Google's business started to suffer because of Schmidt then I would agree. However at the moment it seems that the business has been helped by him not hindered. They may have traded ethics for revenue, but clearly not many shareholders were concerned on that, or the prices would have fallen. Those shareholders would be concerned if Google started to lose business, but that doesn't seem likely to happen at the moment.
I guess it depends on how much credit you give to Schmidt for Google's success. I find it hard to believe that he deserves much... but I could be wrong.
But I agree that if Schmidt deserved a lot less credit for it, then his position as CEO would be more at risk from these gaffes.
It's perfectly possible for Google to be doing worse than it could otherwise have been doing, yet still be doing quite well.
As to your other point, the reason I downvoted it was because it was very short-sighted. Companies that are "controlled by a shark", as you put it, are not well liked, don't attract the best employees, and ultimately get replaced when something with higher values comes along. That kind of thinking is not in the company's enlightened self-interest, and is counter-productive in the medium to long term.
And consequently, no, I wouldn't prefer to invest in such a company, because I would believe it wouldn't have much of a growing future ahead of it. At best, it would maximize profits (as best it can) from mature cash cows in static market; something like Unilever, or P&G. It would be a "safe" investment, and consequently not very rewarding. But in a fast-paced and changing market, it would be a very risky play and subject to dramatic change in less than a decade.
As for what you say I think on a theoretical level I agree with you. But in reality nowadays a lot of shareholders buy and sell for the short term. Just look at all the companies that have very high stocks as they approach the quarterly report, and once they reported an excellent quarter, their prices fall. And that's without considering all the high-frequency trading.
As for being hurt by the gaffes or not, I agree with you that the evidence (as you put it) is not much. But then what evidence do _you_ have that these gaffes are hurting Google? I think (maybe cynically) that a lot of shareholders are very happy with how Google is doing, and they see a lot of profit in front of it: the finer details of "if the CEO had acted differently" maybe then the business would have been a bit different, seems a bit too abstract.
Also, and this is a point I think it's worth making. When I said controlled by a shark many people seemed to have read that as simply meaning someone with no ethics. But that's not the case. I meant someone who gave up ethics to pursue new areas of expansion. So if you will it's a bet. The shareholder has to wonder how much the predatory behaviour of a company are helping it expand (and if it doesn't expand the shares don't go up), and how much its reputation is hurting it.
During the 90s MS was a really big shark, but it's business was flourishing. Same with Facebook: you and I maybe dislike FB's privacy policy, and surely FB is getting a bit of a bad rep. but at the same time at the start FB didn't have a clear business proposition either.
So yeah, maybe Brin and Page would have kept Google as a wonderful place to be, with great ethics, and a lot of geek appeal (and hence amazing employees). But then maybe that same Google would still be concentrating in improving their search algorithm, and maybe having a good mail system. They would not have pursued a FB killer, a Foursquare killer a Twitter killer, an iPhone killer, or any other killer. Then would that company's revenue really been higher than the real Google's? It's not so clear to me.
So yeah, we can all agree that bad reputation can be bad. But putting ethics above profit may be bad too (even for the long-term profit). It's not clear to me what evidence you've shown that the latter would have made Google richer than the former.
At the same time I think most shareholders want to make money from their shares. I am sure that there are a significant amount of ethical shareholders, but not enough that their behaviour would change the shares strongly. They would simply pick a company that is more ethical. But as long as Google makes the earnings it makes, I am sure others would happily take their place.
As for the short-term vs. long-term I would agree with you if Google ended up losing business. But I think we (as in the geeky people on this and similar sites) are out of touch if we think they'll lose much. Look at Facebook and the failed boycott. I don't think a few PR gaffes from its CEO would do Google any harm.
Look: I am not defending Google. I hate that people (and shareholders) are not more ethical. I hate that shareholders may hold onto their stock for only a few days or months: originally it was meant as a way to fund companies you believe in, not as a bet on the market. I am just trying to justify why I think there's no way that this or many more gaffes like this would force Schmidt to resign (or be fired).
So the question isn't whether or not Google is profitable today. It's rather, is Google going to be as profitable as it could be in the future? If it keeps up with what it's doing, there's a risk it could attract unwelcome attention from regulators, especially in Europe. It doesn't take much pissing off of the public re privacy for politicians to be motivated to meddle. Google would do well to put that off as much as possible and minimize potential ramifications. And that work pays off in today's prices.
So it's the benefit of having Schmidt more or less than the disadvantages brought by his gaffes? My feeling is that apart from a people in tech related websites, most people would soon forget about these gaffes. As evidence I pointed out to Google's current share prices, and other companies that have had similar gaffes or actual problems, such as Apple or Facebook.
$461.00 will make you one. So what would YOU want?
Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say that was so bad? Schmidt compared Google to a government. My point is that only shareholders can vote to oust him, and to be a shareholder I've just been informed that it would cost me 461$.
How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$.
If you live in the US, then you already have a vote without spending $461 that can affect how Google operates.
If you wish to change how Google operates from within, it will cost you $461.
> How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant?
Democracy is not about everyone having a vote. Their is a large portion of the US population that cannot vote for various reasons.
As for the down votes: probably because your comment doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.
The problem I had was more the idea that the choice it between giving our data to the companies (without regulation) and to the government. And incidentally several government have told Google to stop certain actions, but they keep going... so clearly here there's something to solve. (I hope we agree that corporations are not above the law, no matter how big).
As for your second point, that it's exactly what democracy is about. You could say that in practice no country has a perfect democracy. In terms of political philosophy, the state is a construct where each citizen gives up a little bit of its power, to get an organism that will regulate how people should live. However those same citizens can also affect the state by using their vote. Hence why everyone who makes up a country should have a vote.
In reality, we negate the vote to people who we consider were not part of the original deal (i.e. they arrived into the country afterwards), or that we don't consider they know enough and understand enough to take their own choices.
Google won't put you in jail, government might.
Governments have too many twisted incentives to be entrusted with too much information. US happens to be one of the better governments, but how successful our voting power was to end or prevent war in Iraq? Or how about recent witchhunt against craigslist? It's not easy to find examples of government doing serious damage.
Google can't start a war.
I would reconsider recommendation that we give government one bit more of power over people.