ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Facebook admits to hiring PR firm for Google smear campaign

By | May 12, 2011, 6:58am PDT

Summary: Facebook is at the center of a brewing scandal as it has been discovered that the social networking giant had hired a PR firm with the intent of smearing Google.

Facebook is at the center of a brewing scandal as it has been discovered that the social networking giant had hired a PR firm with the intent of smearing Google.

According to The Daily Beast, Facebook hired the esteemed Burson-Marsteller public relations firm to take on the secret task, which included pitching “anti-Google stories to newspapers, urging them to investigate claims that Google was invading people’s privacy” as well as helping “an influential blogger write a Google-bashing op-ed, which it promised it could place in outlets like The Washington Post, Politico, and The Huffington Post.”

Facebook has since confirmed its involvement to The Daily Beast for the following reasons:

First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service.

Burson-Marsteller, on the other hand, seems to be uneasy about how to respond to the situation, which isn’t too impressive for a PR firm. First, Burson reps said:

The American people must be made aware of the now immediate intrusions into their deeply personal lives Google is cataloging and broadcasting every minute of every day—without their permission.

But now, as published by The Financial Times, Burson is already trying to apologize for its involvement:

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle.

So far, the only one who hasn’t said anything is Google, which appears to be the smartest approach at this point. Not only is the Mountain View-based company tied up with its own I/O conference in San Francisco this week and responding to hearings regarding its privacy standards in Washington, but it’s better for the Goog just to wait until it can form the most dignified and diplomatic response possible.

Right now, both Burson and Facebook are looking both foolish and dishonest, and Google could just take the lead once they’re done trying to cover up the mess they made themselves.

Related coverage on ZDNet:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Rachel King is a staff writer for ZDNet based in San Francisco.

Disclosure

Rachel King

Rachel King has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted in this blog.

Biography

Rachel King

Rachel King is a staff writer for CBS Interactive in San Francisco. Before serving as a contributing editor at ZDNet in New York City for two years, she previously worked for The Business Insider, FastCompany.com, CNN's San Francisco bureau and the U.S. Department of State. Rachel has also written for MainStreet.com, Irish America Magazine and the New York Daily News, among others. Rachel has a B.A. in Mass Communications and History from the University of California, Berkeley and a M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University, where she served as art director for the student magazine, Plated.

58
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Re: Follow up
John L. Ries Updated - 14th May 2011
@WilErz
If you're right, then you have a serious argument against unregulated, or even free markets, in that they encourage amoral behavior and you have an even more serious argument against the purely governmental practice of establishing and recognizing limited liability corporations (it's always bad public policy to encourage bad behavior).

At the very least, it becomes reasonable to suggest that not only do consumers have the right, but the duty to punish unethical firms by withholding patronage from them, as it can be assumed that money is all they care about and is the only thing likely to modify their behavior. It also behooves workers to be careful whom they accept a job from and to be ready to look elsewhere when the duties of employment start to conflict with conscience. Admittedly, outsiders are dealing with limited information, but when the abuse is obvious, then it should cause people to change their own behavior towards the firm in question. In the end, we (the public; as consumers, workers, investors, and voters) are the invisible hand and we only get as good a market as we deserve.

Thank you for the argument. Hopefully, you got as much benefit from it as I did.
0 Votes
+ -
cone on, Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, MS, you name it they all do the same.
0 Votes
+ -
The first defense of the scoundrel
John L. Ries Updated - 13th May 2011
@Will Pharaoh
"Everybody does it"

Reply to Will's reply: If it were true, then I suspect it would be less controversial. But even if corporations are that crooked, it raises the question of why we should trust or do business with any of them any more than we absolutely have to (but you don't strike me as a free software advocate).

In reality, "everybody does it" is just an excuse raised by those who get caught and their loyal supporters to escape the consequences of their misdeeds.

Reply to WilErz:

Firms are composed of people. Firms composed of and led by ethical people who decline to leave their morals outside the office door, will be ethical. Those that are not won't be. The Pickens Doctrine (corporations exist for the sole purpose of maximizing profit for the shareholders) has become corporate orthodoxy, but it begs the question of why states should charter or recognize corporations at all (there was a time when corporations were few and the vast majority of commerical enterprises were either sole proprietorships or partnerships). Can you make a case that it's in the public interest to require corporations to focus on profit to the exclusion of all other concerns (moral or otherwise)? I can't.
0 Votes
+ -
I know. That stinks, doesn't it?
Will Pharaoh 12th May 2011
@John L. Ries
Thats how all those companies play the game with us in the middle of it all.
0 Votes
+ -
These are firms, not people.
WilErz 13th May 2011
@ John L. Ries

People can be moral or they can be scoundrels. Firms simply maximise profit within the economic framework in place.

It is the state that defines the framework in which firms operate. Firms can't be expected to be moral, only to adhere to the law when the expected cost of breaking it is greater than the expected gain. If you want firms to stop doing something, the only way to do it is for the state to make that thing unprofitable.
0 Votes
+ -
Slightly off topic: Pro-Business Advertising Slogans
John L. Ries Updated - 13th May 2011
Since large numbers of people have deluded themselves into thinking that commercial enterprises exist to serve their customers, instead of the reverse, marketing departments would be well advised to educate the public accordingly.

Examples:

"The bottom line is our top priority."

"XYZCorp: Where money is all that matters."

"ROI Associates: Highest profits in the industry"

"We buy in bulk, and pass the savings on to our shareholders."

"Grindstone Enterprises: Where customers are the most important revenue stream".

...and finally (since commercial competition is notorious for depressing profits):

"Where else are you going to go?"

Reply to GDF:

These are pro-business advertising slogans. "Don't be evil" does not qualify because it assumes that morality is a more important criterion when making business decisions than is profit (a brazen anti-business heresy).
@John L. Ries: marketing advertising slogans

Hey, you forgot the greatest marketing slogan of our time:

DO NO EVIL*.



* Disclaimer: The precise definition of "evil" is context sensitive. It is not evil to be a disruptive force in the IT space, although when we take over large portions of that space, we may redefine "evil" to better suit our position. We take weekly polls of our workforce to determine what feels like "evil" at the time, and try to avoid doing that.
0 Votes
+ -
Further Response to WilErz
John L. Ries Updated - 13th May 2011
Further reply to WilErz:

I'll note that many of the people who claim that likely profit should be the only consideration when making business decisions are also opposed to any effort by legislators to make supposedly unethical business decisions unprofitable (other than *maybe* the common law definitions of fraud, theft, debauchery, and extortion; narrowly construed). Nevertheless, I'll repeat the question: If profit should be the only consideration when making corporate business decisions, why is it in the public interest for states to charter or recognize corporations? For extra credit, why is it in the public interest for commercial enterprises to be amoral?

Edit: No you didn't answer my questions. I understand quite well what publicly traded corporations are expected to do. I think it stinks and that it should discourage people from patronizing one and maybe even to think twice about applying for a job from one (unless one has no other choice). It certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to shield corporate executives from criticism.

The more insidious aspect of the Pickens Doctrine is that it has the long term effect of undermining public confidence in the capitalist system itself, thus encouraging the very commercial regulatory regime (if not public ownership of commercial firms) business conservatives profess to abhor.
0 Votes
+ -
@ John L. Ries

You've obviously misunderstood my comment. I made no statement about what firms should do. I made a statement about what firms do do. In economic theory, firms are viewed as pure profit maximisers, and for publicly traded firms in the Anglo-Saxon system, where managers are accountable to only one stakeholder -- the shareholders, this theoretical construct comes reasonably close to reality. Barring gross violations of the law (e.g. murder), firms will generally only behave 'morally' when it's profitable to do so.

In continental Europe, firms are held accountable to multiple stakeholders (including shareholders, but also, e.g., trade unions representing the employees), so the situation is rather different, particularly in terms of treatment of employees. Nevertheless, managers still often engage in activities which harm consumers and are per se illegal, like price fixing, if they think doing so will increase expected profit. A lot of them simply view it as part of the job: if caught, they take the blame, step down and then a few years later reappear at another firm. If successful, they achieve higher profits, and the stakeholders look the other way.

It's because of routine management decisions to engage in per se illegal activity that EU law recently followed US law in allowing executives who engage in such activities to be imprisoned (rather than simply fined as in the past). Of course there is a high bar: it wouldn't be reasonable to imprison executives whose behaviour is, for example, anti-competitive but not per se illegal. They have to be certain at the time they act that they're unquestionably breaking the law.

If you re-read my comment as it is, rather than placed into a context which you yourself have imagined, you'll find that your questions are redundant.
0 Votes
+ -
Follow-up
WilErz 14th May 2011
@ John L. Ries

I'll also respond to your suggestion that the moral nature of most individuals implies moral behaviour by firms. There are branches of philosophy which view humans as essentially amoral (or immoral), but the evidence against them is overwhelming. Apart from a small minority who are mentally disordered, most people are basically (but certainly not perfectly) moral. It's a result of our evolutionary environment -- representing either widespread mistakes (confusing unrelated or distantly related people with close relatives) or some form of group selection (selection of groups composed of relatively more co-operative individuals). This is a very contentious issue, but nobody with any sense believes people are basically amoral.

If most people are moral, at least to some degree, then why can't we expect most managers to be moral, and for most firms to therefore behave morally? There are two parts to the answer. First, a pure free market driven by shareholder activity is an evolutionary environment in which the sole measure of success is sustained profit. Firms that are consistently more profitable than their competitors gain an advantage that increases over time. All else equal, a consistently more profitable firm will eventually drive all the other firms out of the market, and achieve monopoly status.

If everyone were perfectly moral, then even in a pure free market, firms would behave perfectly morally. However, if selected amoral behaviour leads to higher sustained profit, then firms run by managers who are competent but sufficiently amoral will gain a competitive advantage. A more moral manager who realises this will then face a choice between selectively imitating the amoral managers on the one hand, or losing to them in the market on the other. Some will choose selective amorality over losing to competitors they believe to be entirely amoral. Others will remain moral and eventually be driven out of the market, whilst still others will realise the futility of remaining and exit voluntarily.

In the end, in a pure free market driven by shareholder decisions, if amoral behaviour is more profitable, then firms run by amoral managers will be more fit than others, and over time will predominate. Moral behaviour by firms can only be achieved with a carefully designed legal framework. Legal requirements for co-determination help, but don't ensure moral behaviour towards consumers. That's where things like competition policy come into the picture. However, the subjective nature of some competition law can make it difficult to separate 'good' competition policy (that promotes competition) from 'bad' competition policy (that needlessly distorts market outcomes, rewards political favourites, etc.). This is especially difficult in very dynamic industries, and those with increasing returns to scale. Moreover, free movement of goods and capital can undermine any national/regional legal system.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Follow up
John L. Ries Updated - 14th May 2011
@WilErz
If you're right, then you have a serious argument against unregulated, or even free markets, in that they encourage amoral behavior and you have an even more serious argument against the purely governmental practice of establishing and recognizing limited liability corporations (it's always bad public policy to encourage bad behavior).

At the very least, it becomes reasonable to suggest that not only do consumers have the right, but the duty to punish unethical firms by withholding patronage from them, as it can be assumed that money is all they care about and is the only thing likely to modify their behavior. It also behooves workers to be careful whom they accept a job from and to be ready to look elsewhere when the duties of employment start to conflict with conscience. Admittedly, outsiders are dealing with limited information, but when the abuse is obvious, then it should cause people to change their own behavior towards the firm in question. In the end, we (the public; as consumers, workers, investors, and voters) are the invisible hand and we only get as good a market as we deserve.

Thank you for the argument. Hopefully, you got as much benefit from it as I did.
@Will Pharaoh
And yet Facebook has deep ties with which company? Oh yeah one of the worst offenders!.
0 Votes
+ -
So ignore the proven bogus Mac vs PC ads,
Will Pharaoh 12th May 2011
@Rick_K
And Now I really wonder what ties you have to a certain deep pocketed CE company. wink
@Will Pharaoh
"And Now I really wonder what ties you have to a certain deep pocketed CE company."

Wonder all you like, but the fact of the matter is its baseless. On the other hand, we do in fact know Facebook has been spreading FUD and they are known to be part owned by MS.
  • Flagged
@Will Pharaoh
And Now I really wonder what ties you have to a certain deep pocketed CE company.

Wonder all you like, because I have no ties to any company. But this F.U.D. campaign fits a certain company?s strategy. Pointing that out does not require ties to any company. If Apple, Motorola, Google, etc. were doing the same thing I would have the same reaction. THere are companies that have a long history of doing things I would consider ?ethically challenged?, but they have been successful, so what I think does not matter one bit.
0 Votes
+ -
Part owned by MS?
Will Pharaoh 12th May 2011
@anono
Because MS invested in them? Then Apple is part owned by Rick_K because he invested in them, so it makes my assumptions even more valid.

(BTW - I noticed you where flagged, and it wasn't me. I think we're being played here)
@Will Pharaoh
I'm not sure about how much share MS owns or the complete extent of their relationship, but I'm pretty sure MS owns a significant amount of portion to hold influence and that they have a strong relation with facebook (other than just holding their share).
@Will Pharaoh
Then Apple is part owned by Rick_K because he invested in them, so it makes my assumptions even more valid.

I wish I invested in Apple, with their current stock price I could live the rest of my life without ever having to worry about money. happy What I do wonder is: who?s pocket are you in? Certainly there has to be some sort of monitory arrangement, unless you?re in it for religious aspects?
@Rick_K Right, you preach how Google's customers are actually their product and you ridicule him about the religious aspect?

This article my friend is what they call Crow so eat up!
@Rick_K Exactly from my uderstading it was only from heavy investments from Microsoft that Facebook even became what it was and took out the then standard Myspace.

If I had to guess I would say it is the big Sugar Daddy Microsoft who is using Facebook to attack Google from behind the scens.

It is funny this all comes just as Bing is really trying to compete with Google and just after it added Blackberry and Sybion as partners who will use Bing instead of Google for Locaiton and the like.
@Will Pharaoh

if you are correct does that excuse anyone from doing it?

With your logic then it is cycle that perpetuates itself and cannot stop. Who will be the first to stop these slimey practices?

Huh, guess since one person steals my car I can steal their car, their property or maybe rob them for cash?
@Raid6
I do see your point, but that cycle is usually short and becomes violent. It starts with theft and degrades into a vicious pattern: including bodily harm, and ends in death.
@Raid6 Excellent point, one can not justify the other !

So when you get caught you must be punished it is the same concpet with speeding. Sure most people do it, yet when you are caught you pay the fine and move on, you do not argue well it's ok cause everyone does it.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, Oh my God!
otaddy 12th May 2011
They are trying to take business away from a competitor! The nerve of those Facebook execs!
@Will Pharaoh Got proof instead of just acusations?
@Will Pharaoh Facebook is afraid of competion just like Apple and Microsoft are PERIOD........

Then add the political component of what happens to companies or professions, who will not toe the Liberal line and become servants of the Left. Just ask Docotors what happens when you disagree with the Left !

You get a president accusing you of taking off peoples limbs for profit that's what you get and if you did not hear that one go to Googles own Youtube and look it up OBAMA IN FACT SAID THAT !
0 Votes
+ -
Don't believe any of them!
Privacy man 12th May 2011
As long as our private info worth billions to them, they will do all they can to get it. Control your info get Breadcrumbs privacy software and make your online data worthless.
0 Votes
+ -
OK
John L. Ries 12th May 2011
That explains the "Google sells your data" line we've been getting from some of the talkbackers here, including some very Conservative ones that I'm surprised would care about such things (the stance doesn't strike me as very "pro-business").
I don't see anything wrong with this. If the claims are true there is nothing Google can do about it.
@LoverockDavidson
You are one of the sheep, who fell for this smear campaign and repeated every word so I'm not surprised you see nothing wrong with this. I wouldn't have been surprised if you said you knew they were doing this all along like Will/Bill Farrell/Pharaoh.
@anono

I never see such advertising because I don't use Social Media (will rarely and when I do I feel dirty and shower immediately after logging off).

That bewing said, if the "smear" is factually accurate in both detail and context then it is not a smear.

I have no problem what-so-ever with negatively potraying a competitor if the information I offer is accurate and in context.

When a business (or person) uses informaiton that is not accurate and/or out of context then that is in fact a smear.

I don't mind scrapping, taking the gloves off and getting into the ring. I don't want to live in a world where I cannot beat up on my competitor. But again, the message must be accurate and honest - beyond that gentleman come out fighting.
@anono
Why bother? Some people are blinded by religion, and refuse to see the truth.
0 Votes
+ -
[NT]
0 Votes
+ -
That's illegal
guihombre 12th May 2011
Do they understand that Google will now take them to court and get punitive damages?? I mean mega money, all of those Linden dollars Facebook are worth won't be able to pay the damages involved.

And the secrecy and third party approach is evidence of wrong doing. They make claims in secret they wouldn't dare make in public.

Making a competitor appear bad with hidden plots is the old classic tortuous interference in business.

It would be like Microsoft using Exchange to bounce emails if they contain Open Office documents...
0 Votes
+ -
@guihombre No, it would be like Microsoft funding some little company in Utah to sue IBM and make libelous claims about IBM stealing IP from their business partners.
0 Votes
+ -
Rubbish.
WilErz 13th May 2011
@ Robert Hahn

By 'funding' you mean buying a Unix licence (and so did Sun Microsystems) and later suggesting a potential third party investor? Rather extreme hyperbole on your part. It's a good thing for you that the US has no libel laws to speak of.
0 Votes
+ -
Not illegal if it's true.
Will Pharaoh 12th May 2011
@guihombre
Google's been quite through-out. Maybe this company made a claim it though was fake, but turned out to be true, so Google's asking themselves "how did they find out?"
@Will Pharaoh
Sheep are still going bahhhhh even after they've been exposed of simply repeating FUD to every word.
0 Votes
+ -
Not sure your point
guihombre 12th May 2011
If facebook believed that we'd be reading stories like "facebook accuses Google of blah blah blah".

I think Facebook got caught, asked a lawyer, and the lawyer told them to stick their name on it and brazen it out as opinion (i.e. free speech) vs tortuous interference.

If they say something false, its then a 'mistake' and Google would have to prove it was malicious. Whereas do it in secret and it looks like a confession to a court. Probably the smartest thing to do in the circumstances.
0 Votes
+ -
@ guihombre

Under US law, lying is generally acceptable. The bar to a successful defamation suit is so high that there might as well be no law at all.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Facebook admits to hiring PR firm for Google smear campaign
Gabriel Hernandez Updated - 12th May 2011
The truth is Google is facing a lawsuit similar than Apple did , since it's OS is tracking location of its users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/28/google_sued_over_android_location_tracking/

Sammy Kamkar security researcher knows more details on how this is done, but it mainly tells that Android sends MAC Address, GPS coordinate and a unique Identifier of your phone.
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps that's Facebook lawsuit too
guihombre Updated - 12th May 2011
They cache the last 50 towers, their GPS location (the towers not the phone). Of the three companies I thought this was the least invasive. Apple calculated the *user* location and time and recorded that, the excuse that it was to speed the lookup was rubbish, it was a sampling of the user location... to speed the lookup of tower locations you'd cache the GPS coordinate of any recent towers you'd looked up when calculating a Network Position.

Never did have an answer to Declans claim that MS was sending the users GPS position. If he is right then they're the real dog here, but who cares if only a few people are buying those phones.

Still don't like it that phones send ids for services that don't require ids. I even can tell from web logs who visits with which phones because they stick the phone id in there. Why does every manufacturer do that?

I don't think that's right, phones should not transmit a unique id other than the IP address used to send the data and any consented thing like a website login.

[edit - ahh, now I see, it's the old phone widgets that do it, the browser don't, I'm wrong on that]


To my point: this lawsuit going for Google seemed to be to draw attention away from Apple, however if Facebook are doing a dirty tricks campaign, then this would also fit that.

Picture of the two woman at a Christmas parade together with hubby:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/12/05/life/doc4cfc360ff3457835560383.txt
@guihombre I agree, Google has been upfront with this and if you opt out of location services you will not be tracked...

Apple's tracking, for whatever reason, was keeping a year!
Looks like I was right, these Apple Shills are using sources that aren't reputable and this also explains why there were never any links posted with these claims.

Of course the real blame is with the PR firm and Facebook because this is pretty sleazy!
0 Votes
+ -
Pot calling the kettle black
lars626 Updated - 12th May 2011
I find it ironic that Facebook is trying to paint Google as the 'bad guy'. Google has made mistakes, several of them, but Facebook has made the same sort of mistakes. And has made the same mistakes repeatedly. Facebook seems to think they can always get out of trouble with an "oops, we're sorry" and a load of PR. One of these days they will cross the line far enough and get into legal trouble they can't talk their way out of. Zuckerberg and company had a good idea. Why does he seem to think he has to act like a Steve Jobs in training?
0 Votes
+ -
Zuckerberg is a prick
betelgeuse68 12th May 2011
I was neutral but if as the "man in charge" he's allowing this to happen, that speaks volumes to his character.

It likely also means he screwed people from his Harvard days just has been talked about and portrayed in the film "The Social Network".

-M
Given the suspect behavior of Zuckerberg and the origins of Facebook, this smear tactic is hardly surprising.
0 Votes
+ -
all companies suck
gumbootiner 13th May 2011
i'm posting this from my own isp and am using a computer with hardware i made, and software i coded myself. down with all corporations! seriously though, anyone who picks up for any of these dirtbags have something to gain or are just retarded.
0 Votes
+ -
Facebook, MS, and ownership
MadYank 13th May 2011
Uhhh, since Bill Gates and other BIG Microsoft execs have invested in Apple, does that make them minority owners of THEIR RIVAL?
Does that mean that Apple is now a VICTIM of this gigantic CONSPIRACY?
OMG, could it be, INDUSTRIAL DISEASE???
C'mon Guys, this is Friday the 13TH; Get A Life...
So, I deny Google setting ANY cookies on my computer. How can they track me them?

Just curious.....

Nor do I have a Facebook account. Nor will I ever have one. I have a phone, and I can call anyone I need to tell them what's going on in my life, or if they are interested, they can call me. I fail to see the point of putting all my personal information out there so someone can make money from selling it or use it to steal my identity.

Also, it's more than a little hilarious actually, the pot calling the kettle black. I trust neither of them any further than I could throw a loaded 18 wheeler.

More people should be so careful.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix