It is literally Google saying, "Oh look, cute puppies!" when faced with a global barrage of criticism about its disdain for user privacy or its own past promises.
b. Google being "always under fire" by consumers, regulators and activists is no reason to start letting it off the hook. In fact, it should be the converse.
If you believe they're releasing this specifically because they're under fire, by that criteria it's never OK for them to release a "feelgood" ad.
As I recall, Google has been releasing feelgood ads for years - has it all been to nefarious purpose? They're a large consumer company. They're advertising - which includes tugging heartstrings if it gets them more customers.
Starting with "don't be evil." Whether Google has lived up to those lofty goals in the intervening years of working with the Chinese Government, the NSA, etc., I will leave to the reader to decide.
Parisian Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU Dear Sophie Lee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk
I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.
Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment.
That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it [0], suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value.
[0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-bu...
Here's the article that was submitted to HN about a recent thing:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Ca...
Here's the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162
Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.
It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)
You've got a beautifully produced and captivating video, which makes no secret about advertising something. People enjoy it and engage with it, but then suddenly catch themselves: "Oh no! What if this advertisement was created... for profit?"
Of course it was! So what?
To created purely to give pleasure to people is one thing, it is an act of generosity and altruism, if it is done to manipulate, then it is something very different. PR and advertising are manipulations.
The worst thing is to see something like this, allow it to emotionally effect one, then discover at the end that is is a corporate manipulation. Dunno about others, but that makes me feel used.
This is literally the entire advertising industry's purpose. If you think any single advertisement is not solely intended to trick you into equating good feelings with a particular brand, product, or person then you are very naive.
There is no such thing as advertisement that is made just "to give pleasure to people", even when it comes from Google.
Firstly, I out lined a scenario where one didn't know the piece was an advert, and later discovered it was.
Second, I never said or implied an advert was to give pleasure.
If you want to call me naive, I then have to suggest you may be illiterate, or a at best imaginative.
You got me (almost) Google. And since when did they start showing ads in India?
What would be interesting to know is if India is basically virgin territory as far as Google (marketing) ideology. In other words, is Google free to start from scratch there, without (some clearly outlined) lofty promises?
= We have too much dangerous information that will turn us into a monster, so don't blame us when that happens