By Jason Lim
Recently, members of Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) held a protest in front of Google’s Mountain View headquarters to express its displeasure over the corporation’s recent decision to refer to Dokdo as the Liancourt Rocks on its global map. This protest follows on the heels of highly publicized ― and highly negative ― coverage in mainstream Korean media of Google’s decision and the possible role that Japan’s government played in the process.
My first reaction upon hearing this story was that Google should have heeded Vizzini from The Princess Bride when he tells the Man in Black: “Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia!’” An alternate version and only slightly less famous is: “Never get involved in a territorial dispute between Japan and any of the other Asian countries that suffered under Imperial Japan.” Oh well, so much for Vizzini.
As self-appointed protector of anything Korean on the internet, VANK’s protests could be overlooked as a self-promotion stunt with negligible effect on Google’s global operations. However, what caught my attention was that VANK used the interesting term, “Google Imperialism,” when condemning Google’s decision. While this term, apparently used to describe Google’s obvious global reach and influence, could be dismissed as descriptive hyperbole, it should nevertheless be worrisome to Google’s leadership if it intends to remain in Seoul and expand its market share and outreach in Korea.
And not just Korea, but all of Asia, because throughout history, Korea has served as a key gateway into Asia for people from around the world. I know that Japan is there also, but no less an authority than the late Samuel Huffington (of the Clash of Civilizations fame) designated Japan as a unique civilization that’s culturally separate from the rest of Asia ― this means that Japan has a limited role in serving as a diving platform for global businesses who want to jump into the larger Asian pool, especially if what you are selling is less a product than a service that affects how people work, live, and interact (i.e. culture).
Especially now that hallyu is treading where no other cultural trends treaded before (Oppan, Gangnam Style, baby!), what happens in Korea tends not to stay in Korea but spreads rapidly to the rest of Asia. This means that operating in Korea is not just about succeeding in the Korean market, but also about experimenting, incubating, and innovating for the rest of Asia.
Perhaps November just isn’t a good month for global search engines in Korea. Yahoo just announced that it is giving up on its Yahoo Korea brand and voluntarily leaving the Korean market at the end of this year. While the specific reasons for Yahoo’s retreat from Korea are unknown, it’s no secret that Yahoo Korea never really caught on as a viable alternative to the locally grown search engines, Naver or Daum.
I mean, you never think about Yahoo Korea when you go to search for something Korean. It just never made itself relevant to the netizen’s public consciousness, including mine. More critically, it failed to localize; it never overcame its image as a large foreign entity that wanted to impose its own style and system on Korea, rather than something that was grown organically from the bottom up with the social and cultural sensibilities that matched its transplanted environment.
Which is why Google’s leadership should be concerned about being branded as “imperial,” because the term conjures up all the negative images associated with foreign armies trampling on local people. And when you add Dokdo to the mix, you definitely conjure up the ghost of Imperial Japan’s past atrocities. Being painted with the same emotional brush as Imperial Japan is not exactly a good public relations and stakeholder management move for Google. And not just in Korea; Japan has some serious karmic debts owed pretty much to all Asian countries.
What’s ironic is that, from a corporate perspective, Google probably made the right decision. But what they tried to do ― stay out of the territorial disputes that are so emotionally charged ― paradoxically got them involved more deeply in the disputes and got them viewed by their local markets as an outsider. It was a lose-lose situation for Google.
This could be a blessing in disguise for Google because what this misstep reveals is that it is in desperate need of a comprehensive yet targeted localization and engagement policy that aims to reposition the corporation as a locally sensitive and grown service that happens to have a global outreach and resources, rather than a global service that happens to be out of touch with local sensibilities yet wants to impose itself on local markets.
This goes beyond traditional marketing of commercial services and goods, but into relationship building and networking with local stakeholders in a much more organic and home-grown way that caters specifically to the local cultural and emotional topography.
To be successful, it would take nimbleness and agile leadership that we haven’t seen before from any global business, but perhaps Google can prove us wrong.
Jason Lim is a Washington D.C based expert on innovation, engagement and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006. He can be reached at jasonlim@msn.com, facebook/jasonlim2000 and @jasonlim2012.